A Sea Change · for those who make a living from its resources but because of the seas’ crucial role in absorbing greenhouse gases, it is critical to the balance of the earth’s

A Sea ChangeA Marine Bill White Paper

March 2007

Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsMarine Legislation Division3-8 Whitehall PlaceLondon SW1A 2HHEmail: [email protected]

© Crown Copyright 2007

The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and departmental logos) may be reproducedfree of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in amisleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of thedocument specified.

Any enquiries relating to the copyright in this document should be addressed to The LicensingDivision, HMSO, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ.Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected]

This document is also available on the Defra website.

Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Printed in the UK, March 2007, on material that contains a minimum of 100% recycled fibrefor uncoated paper and 75% recycled fibre for coated paper.

Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State forEnvironment Food and Rural AffairsBy Command of Her Majesty

March 2007

A Sea ChangeA Marine Bill White Paper

Cm 7047 £32.50

Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsMarine Legislation Division3-8 Whitehall PlaceLondon SW1A 2HHEmail: [email protected]

© Crown Copyright 2007

The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and departmental logos) may be reproducedfree of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in amisleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of thedocument specified.

Any enquiries relating to the copyright in this document should be addressed to The LicensingDivision, HMSO, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ.Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected]

This document is also available on the Defra website.

Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Printed in the UK, March 2007, on material that contains a minimum of 100% recycled fibrefor uncoated paper and 75% recycled fibre for coated paper.

Foreword 1

Executive Summary 2

1. Introduction 4

Why does this matter? 4

What do we need to change? 4

What have we done so far? 5

What do we want to do? 5

What are we going to do? 7

When are we going to do it? 8

How does this fit with wider European, international and other obligations and initiatives? 9

Regulating better 10

Geographic scope 12

Regulatory Impact Assessment 13

2. Integration between land and sea 14

3. Environmental data and information 16

4. Planning in the marine area 18

Summary of our proposals 18

Geographic scope 18

Rationale for planning ahead 19


Setting a clear direction: a shared UK marine policy statement 20

Translating policy into plans 24

Integration with other plans 34

Influencing decisions 35

Delivering plans 37

5. Licensing activities in the marine area 41


Introduction 41

Creating a modern, streamlined and simplified marine licensing regime 46

Carbon capture and storage 54

Oil and gas 56

Contents

Contents

Constructing renewable energy installations in the sea 57

Harbours legislation 59

Transport and Works Act 1992 60

Small scale telecommunications development in the sea 60

Delivering the new licensing regime 61

6. Marine nature conservation 65


Introduction 66

Marine Conservation Zones 70

Species protection 84

Control of unregulated activities 89

Enforcement 93

7. Modernising marine fisheries management 98


Sea Fisheries Committees in England 99

Several and Regulating Orders for shellfish 110

Recreational sea angling and unregulated fishing 115

Enforcement and control of commercial fishing 118

Charging the fishing industry 122

Out-of-date and redundant fisheries legislation 123

8. A Marine Management Organisation 125


Introduction 125

Integrated management within a single organisation 127


Functions of the new Marine Management Organisation 130

Relationships with other bodies 142

Implications of previous reviews for the Marine Management Organisation 149

References 152

Glossary 157

Acronyms 166

1

Much of what goes on in our seas is not easily observed.Perhaps for this reason, the marine environment has nottraditionally enjoyed as much attention as what happens onland. But the sustainable management of our seas is one ofthe biggest environmental challenges we face.

A healthy and productive marine environment is obviously vitalfor those who make a living from its resources but because of

the seas’ crucial role in absorbing greenhouse gases, it is critical to the balance of the earth’secosystems and the fight against climate change.

Marine legislation has built up piecemeal over centuries. It is confusing, overlapping and brokeninto sectors. However, countries all over the world are reviewing the way they manage theirmarine environment.

The UK Government recognised the need for fundamental change when we promised in our lastgeneral election manifesto to introduce a new framework for the sea, based on marine planning,that balances conservation, energy and resource needs.

Our proposals for a Marine Bill, which we consulted on last year, enjoyed widespread support.

Since then, the European Commission has come forward with proposals for a more strategic andholistic approach to the marine environment that mirror our own.

We are delighted now to be publishing this detailed White Paper with policy proposals that willhelp us meet our commitment to legislation in the current Parliament.

We are extremely grateful to officials in Defra, other Government departments and the devolvedadministrations for the commitment and hard work that has been needed to publish thisdocument. I would also like to thank all those organisations and individuals who took part in ourconsultation and have contributed to our work before and since.

We are confident this White Paper will help us achieve a legal and management framework forour seas fit for the 21st Century, so that future generations will continue to benefit from a clean,healthy and productive marine environment.

David Miliband Ben Bradshaw

Foreword

The UK Government is committed to introducing a new framework for the seas through aMarine Bill. It will establish a strategic system of marine planning, and will balance conservation,energy and resource needs.

This White Paper explains why new legislation is required. It sets out the UK Government’sintention for the scope and content of the Marine Bill. The views of anyone with an interest willbe welcomed – the consultation period will end on 8 June 2007. The responses will help torefine these proposals and ensure that the Marine Bill will be fit for purpose.

Why do we need a Marine Bill?There are many existing systems for managing marine activities and protecting marine wildlifeand the marine environment. These can be complex, confusing and costly. They are generallydiscrete and do not provide a strategic approach. Pressures on our seas are increasing and thereis growing demand for marine space from the expansion of traditional activities and emergenceof new technologies. Our approach will be flexible, so that we can adapt to the impact ofclimate change on our seas and recognise the contribution that the marine area can make tomeet this challenge. We want to ensure that we have the tools that we need to balanceconservation needs with the demands that we place on the marine area to meet social andeconomic requirements.

PurposeThe principle of sustainable development runs through the Marine Bill proposals. The Bill will bebased on the principles of good regulation and modern government. It will improve the deliveryof marine policies, by providing an integrated approach to sustainable management and theenhancement and use of the marine natural environment for the benefit of current and futuregenerations. It will help deliver economic, social and environmental objectives with a strategic,progressive and effective approach.

Working togetherThe UK Government and devolved administrations are working together to manage the marinearea around the UK in a coherent way. Within this overall approach, each administration willdecide on the most appropriate way to implement change within their respective areas andcompetence. The changes we make must also be consistent with international and European law.

The main themesThere are five key areas that will be covered in the Marine Bill, but there are significant links andinterdependencies between them.

2

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

A new Marine Management OrganisationThe UK Government and Northern Ireland administration have decided that a new MarineManagement Organisation (MMO) is needed to help effectively deliver many marine policies.The MMO will be guided by a UK marine policy statement. It will deal with a range of functions(including marine planning, licensing and enforcement) that together provide a holistic approachto marine management.

Marine planningThe Marine Bill will introduce a new system of marine planning. This will provide a strategicapproach to the use of marine space and the interactions between its uses. It will encompass allactivities and deliver sustainable development by facilitating forward looking decision-making.Marine plans will guide decisions on licence applications and other issues, and provide users ofthe sea with more certainty.

Licensing marine activitiesThe proposals will deliver a marine licensing system that is more efficient and transparent,leading to less risk, delay and cost to business. We will replace some existing legislation with amodern streamlined system. The changes will simplify marine licensing processes and provide fora rationalised and more integrated approach.

Marine nature conservationThe proposals will provide for new mechanisms that will supplement existing tools for theconservation of marine ecosystems and biodiversity. This will include a new approach toprotected areas for important species and habitats.

Managing marine fisheriesThe Marine Bill will modernise inshore fisheries management arrangements and enable a moreactive approach to managing recreational sea angling. It will strengthen fisheries enforcementpowers and provide for recovery of the costs of fishing vessel licence administration.

3

Why does this matter?1.1 Our oceans, seas and coasts have a huge impact on our lives, much of which goes

unnoticed or is taken for granted, even though for most of us the sea is never very faraway. The UK marine area is a vast and important resource that is of vital importance toour well-being. Not only does it provide us with valuable economic, environmental andcultural benefits, it plays a major role in shaping our climate and in sustaining life.Without our oceans and seas there would be no life on this planet.

1.2 Shallow seas such as those that surround much of the UK constitute less than ten percentof the world’s total marine area yet contain the vast majority of its marine life. Our seasare no exception, containing up to half of the UK’s biodiversity. As part of the North-EastAtlantic, they are one of the most biologically productive marine areas in the world. Aswell as its own innate importance, it is that diversity which contributes to the range ofresources that we can utilise, the ability of marine ecosystems to adapt to changingconditions, and the influence these systems have in controlling our global climate.

1.3 Activities in the marine area contribute substantially to the UK economy and quality of life.It is estimated that the economic contribution of these activities is in the order of 67 billionpounds Sterling annually in the UK.52 Important contributors are oil and gas (22.3 billion),tourism and recreation (16 billion), naval defence (6.5 billion), and ship and boat buildingand repairs (3 billion), with significant contributions being made by ports (1.6 billion),fisheries (0.5 billion) and a range of other activities.

What do we need to change?1.4 In many places the marine area is becoming increasingly crowded with demands on space

for development, to exploit resources, for recreation and nature conservation.Space is particularly in demand near to the coast, in shallow waters and in our estuaries.Technological developments and the demand for resources for an increasing variety ofactivities have led to further exploitation of the marine area, which has moved into deeperwaters and more remote areas.

1.5 We are facing significant environmental modification brought about by climate changewith rising sea levels and a changing coastline, increasing sea temperatures and changes inseawater chemistry. Biodiversity will respond to these changes and human activities willneed to adapt to them too.

1.6 A number of recent reviews and reports have considered the challenges and the way that we manage and protect our marine resources. These have shown that we do nothave all the necessary tools we need. The complex system of legislation and regulationthat helps us manage marine activities and protect marine nature and the marineenvironment has developed to address sectoral issues over many years and has a numberof gaps and limitations.

1.7 Currently there is no strategic framework for policy in the marine area. Management of ourseas can be ad hoc and reactive. We do not plan in a strategic, coordinated way and thismakes it difficult to assess the cumulative impacts of activities. We do not have a focal

4

1. Introduction

1. Introduction

point for effective, integrated management of activities in the marine area. Nor is theresufficient focus on the task of collecting the information needed to take strategic decisions.In the busy parts of our seas, it is difficult to balance shipping, fishing, industrial, leisure andenvironmental objectives. We need substantial reform to make our systems fit for the futureand the expected future increases in the intensity of marine activities.

What have we done so far?1.8 In 2001, the Prime Minister committed the UK Government to new measures to improve

marine conservation, including a series of Marine Stewardship reports. The first of thesereports, ‘Safeguarding Our Seas’, jointly published a year later by the UK Government anddevolved administrations, set out the shared vision of ‘clean, healthy, safe, productive andbiologically diverse oceans and seas’.7 The UK Government and devolved administrationsjointly published this to address the strategic issues faced across all UK waters. It also set outa strategy for the conservation and sustainable development of the marine environment.The UK Government and devolved administrations committed to implement an ecosystemapproach to reconcile and integrate conservation goals with the full range of demands thatwe place on the marine environment to help meet our economic and social needs.

1.9 In 2005, we completed an integrated assessment of the ‘State of Our Seas – ChartingProgress’.11 The overall picture that emerged was that UK seas are productive and supporta wide range of fish, mammals, seabirds and other marine life. The levels of monitoredcontaminants and pollution have decreased significantly. However, human activities haveresulted in adverse changes to the marine ecosystem and continue to do so. These directhuman activities, along with climate change, pose a real threat to the balance andintegrity of the marine ecosystem.

1.10 Since ‘Charting Progress’, we have implemented the new UK Marine Monitoring andAssessment Strategy (UKMMAS), formed the Marine Climate Change Impact Partnershipand the Marine Data and Information Partnership (MDIP). We have also made realprogress in protecting our marine area and have played a key role in European andinternational efforts to protect the oceans both regionally and globally.

What do we want to do?1.11 The UK Government and the devolved administrations are committed to working together

to manage marine activities and protect UK seas effectively. Together, we have adopted anumber of strategic goals for the marine environment, and made a commitment to ensurethat our policies and marine management contribute to meeting these goals.10 We areworking together to achieve the best and most appropriate means for managing activitiesin the marine area around the UK.

5

The UK Government’s and devolved administrations’ shared vision andstrategic goals for the marine environment.

The vision:

Clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas.

The strategic goals:

• to conserve and enhance the overall quality of our seas, their natural processes and theirbiodiversity;

• to use marine resources in a sustainable and environmentally sensitive manner in order toconserve ecosystems and achieve optimum environmental, social and economic benefitfrom the marine environment;

• to promote and encourage economically and environmentally sustainable use of naturalresources to ensure long term economic benefits and sustainable employment;

• to increase our understanding of the marine environment, its natural processes and ourcultural marine heritage and the impact that human activities have on them; and

• to promote public awareness, understanding and appreciation of the value of the marineenvironment and seek active public participation in the development of new policies.

1.12 To achieve these goals we must ensure that we have all the tools that we need. That iswhy the UK Government is committed to a Marine Bill, to provide the necessary legal toolsto effectively deliver our policies.

1.13 The Marine Bill proposals will provide a strategic approach to the protection and use ofthe marine area – now and for future generations. They will introduce:

• a new UK-wide system of marine planning, with devolved matters delivered by eachdevolved administration;

• a streamlined, transparent and consistent system for licensing marine developments;

• a flexible mechanism to protect natural resources, including marine protected zoneswith clear objectives; and

• improvements to the management of marine fisheries in relation to England, Walesand Northern Ireland and the ability to share the costs of management withcommercial and recreational sectors.

1.14 For England and Northern Ireland and for matters that are not devolved this will primarilybe delivered by a new body – a Marine Management Organisation (MMO) – which willwork for all relevant UK Government departments, acting as an expert, efficient andimpartial delivery agent. Scotland and Wales will implement their own deliveryarrangements for devolved matters.

6

1. Introduction

Aims for the Marine Bill

To create a strategic marine planning system that will clarify our marine objectivesand priorities for the future, and direct decision-makers and users towards moreefficient, sustainable use and protection of our marine resources.

To change marine licensing regimes to give better, more consistent licensingdecisions, delivered more quickly and at less cost by a system that is easier tounderstand and to use. We want to integrate delivery across a range of sectors andprovide an effective link through planning to enforcement.

To introduce new tools for conservation of marine wildlife to help halt thedeterioration of biodiversity and promote recovery where practicable, to supporthealthy, functioning and resilient ecosystems, and provide mechanisms that candeliver current and future European and international conservation obligations.

To strengthen fisheries and environmental management arrangements so that moreeffective action can be taken to conserve marine ecosystems and help achieve asustainable and profitable fisheries sector.

To set up a new UK Government MMO to deliver many objectives for the marinearea. A new organisation would be a centre of marine expertise, provide a consistentand unified approach, deliver improved coordination of information and data andreduce administrative burdens. The integration proposed would provide benefitsfrom joined up delivery and economies of scale that could not be realised by placingthose functions in separate organisations.

What are we going to do?1.15 Activities in the marine area must be managed effectively, to deliver the right balance

between protection of the environment and social and economic needs. Sustainabledevelopment is at the heart of our proposals in this White Paper.

1.16 The guiding principle of sustainable development is to enable us to satisfy our basic needsand enjoy a better quality of life without compromising the quality of life for futuregenerations. The UK Government and the devolved administrations have a sharedframework for sustainable development, which sets out how they intend to pursue thatgoal in an integrated way through a sustainable, innovative, and productive economy thatdelivers high levels of employment, and a just society that promotes social inclusion,sustainable communities and personal well being.12 This will be done in ways that protectand enhance the physical and natural environment, and use resources and energy asefficiently as possible.

7

1. Introduction

8

Shared UK principles of sustainable development

A shared set of principles sets out the overarching approach to achieving the UK’s sustainable development goal:

• living within environmental limits;

• ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;

• achieving a sustainable economy;

• promoting good governance; and

• using sound science responsibly.

1.17 Through the Marine Bill, our objective is to establish modern and flexible newarrangements and structures that will stand the test of time. We want to improve thedelivery of policies relating to marine activities operating in coastal and offshore watersand to marine natural resource protection. We need a strategic and long-term decision-making framework that can anticipate the way we will use marine and coastal areas infuture, and the effects that those uses will have. We want to facilitate sustainableeconomic growth whilst protecting the environment, providing us with a marine andcoastal environment that can be enjoyed by all. We want coherent management withinand between sectors so that we can deliver sustainable development.

1.18 We set out the proposed scope and content of a Marine Bill in our public consultation14 inMarch 2006. The responses to the consultation were overwhelmingly in favour of the scopeand purpose of our proposals and the principles that we set out that underpinned thoseproposals.15 The majority of responses were also strongly in favour of integration andharmonisation of structures and policies across UK waters and wider international boundaries.

1.19 This White Paper sets out an integrated suite of proposals for a new approach to themanagement of activities in our marine area. They will allow the UK Government and thedevolved administrations to take proactive policy decisions and implement them. We willprovide the tools to maximise benefits from the seas and coasts whilst preserving theirintegrity for the future – achieving a holistic approach that has never been achievablebefore, and which was supported in responses to the 2006 Marine Bill consultation bystakeholders from all sectors.

When are we going to do it?1.20 We want to implement each of our proposals swiftly but some will take longer than

others. Figure 1 shows approximately when we expect some of the key proposals will beimplemented.

1.21 Although it will be some time before the combined benefits of all the proposals arerealised, each proposal will be implemented as soon as is practicable. For example, whilstthe full benefits of the reformed licensing regimes will be achieved when we have a fullsuite of marine plans to guide licensing decisions, this does not mean that we should waituntil we have implemented marine plans before we introduce improvements to licensingsystems that will bring benefits in their own right.

1. Introduction

1.22 An important principle throughout the implementation of our proposals is that no oneshould be retrospectively disadvantaged through the imposition of new rules. Onlyactivities undertaken or applications for new licences made after specifically advertiseddates will be subject to new rules. Any applications already accepted prior to these dateswill be processed in accordance with existing rules and guidance.

Figure 1: Illustrative timeline for implementation of Marine Bill proposals

How does this fit with wider European, international and otherobligations and initiatives?1.23 Our proposals are compatible with, and will enable us to meet, our obligations under

European and international law. The UK’s commitments, as a result of relevant Europeanand international obligations, will continue to apply whatever the scope and nature of thelegislation brought forward because of our proposals. One of our purposes is to make thenet effect of all relevant requirements clearer and more effective and to provide a firm andcertain foundation upon which integrated management in the marine area can be built.

1.24 We also want our proposals to contribute to wider initiatives and obligations wherepossible. For example, the Government is committed to taking the lead on internationalaction to address climate change. Our proposals will provide greater certainty andstreamlined, more transparent licensing arrangements for marine industries, includingthose developing offshore renewable projects. This will help us to meet our targets forincreasing the amount of energy generated by renewable technologies.

9

1 year 2 years 5 years 20 years10 years

MMO set up

1st shared UKmarine policystatement

New marinelicensing regimesimplemented

1st marineplan(s) adopted

Reformed SFCsset up in England

Full set ofmarine plansadopted

Network of nationalmarine protectedareas completed

Years from Royal Assent of a Marine Act

Regular review ofshared UK marine policystatement and marineplans once adopted

1. Introduction

1.25 We will ensure that the arrangements that we put in place are flexible. We need to becapable of responding to the changes that we know will happen in the future and, as faras possible, to changes that we have yet to foresee.

1.26 There are a range of developments that will have an impact in the marine area, including:

• The European Commission are developing a European Marine Thematic Strategy, thereis currently a draft Marine Strategy Directive under discussion and a Maritime GreenPaper is being consulted upon.

• The UK Government has developed a number of proposals that have been publishedrecently, or are due to be published soon: a Planning Reform White Paper, an EnergyWhite Paper, a Heritage Protection White Paper and a draft Climate Change Bill. Thereare consultations on carbon capture and storage and natural gas storage, and in duecourse there will be consultations on improving recreational access to the English coastand on the secondary legislation that will follow the passage of a Marine Bill.

1.27 The Energy Review Report (July 2006) committed the UK Government to introducingfundamental change to the planning system for major energy projects once the findings ofthe Eddington Study on transport and the Barker Review on land use planning were clear.Both were published in December 2006 and the UK Government gave an initial positiveresponse, in its Pre-Budget Report, to the proposals on infrastructure and planning in bothreports. It also gave a commitment to publishing a Planning Reform White Paper in Spring2007. The planning areas covered include energy, transport, water and waste projects thatare of national economic importance.

1.28 We have developed the Marine Bill proposals to complement these other developments.The draft Marine Strategy Directive and Maritime Green Paper are developing in a waythat strongly supports our proposed direction. We have the opportunity to lead the way inEurope, particularly on marine planning. Introduction of a successful, effective andproportionate planning system in the UK is likely to strongly influence the Europeanproposals. It is also a reason for developing a flexible framework that will be able toaccommodate European developments.

Regulating better1.29 The UK Government is committed to pursuing the Regulating Better agenda by

implementing in relation to the marine area recommendations from the Hampton Review34

and the Better Regulation Task Force report ‘Less is more’.3 These include:

• regulating only when necessary – supported by a robust evidence base and in a waythat is proportionate to the risks;

• setting demanding targets for reducing the cost of administering regulations and

• targeting inspection and enforcement.

1.30 Better regulation promotes efficiency, productivity and value for money. Proportionateregulation and inspection arrangements can help drive up standards and deliver betteroutcomes – whether in the form of improving public services, a better environment forbusiness, or driving forward economic reform in Europe.

10

1. Introduction

1.31 The proposals in this White Paper seek to maximise benefits whilst minimising burdens.We will establish a modern, transparent, efficient and effective legislative framework thatenables improved decision-making and minimises bureaucracy by consolidating thecomplex, disparate and diverse body of marine regulation into a clearer regulatoryframework that will resolve overlaps and inconsistencies, aid clarity and improvecompliance. We will also repeal out of date and redundant legislation where appropriateand simplify the legislative landscape where possible.

1.32 Policies plus sustainable development and environmental objectives will be clarified andapplied through marine plans. This will help businesses to assess the potential impact oftheir developments on marine ecosystems and will inform subsequent decisions onlicensing. We will introduce efficient, flexible planning arrangements that minimisebureaucracy. Marine plans will provide targeted and relevant information to business tohelp reduce business costs and regulatory risks of exploiting marine resources, and willprovide efficient decision-making through the licensing process. Marine planning will bean inclusive process for all interested stakeholders.

1.33 In particular, industry will welcome our proposals to:

• reduce the need to apply for multiple licences for single developments;

• limit the number of separate regimes that a business working in the marine area mustdeal with;

• reduce costs, expedite and modernise the licensing process;

• rationalise the number of regulatory bodies that business interfaces with; and

• increase regulatory certainty.

1.34 We will introduce a suite of modern compliance mechanisms, including preventivemeasures, appropriate remediation or compensation obligations and in some casesadministrative penalties or civil penalties. These are precisely the sorts of proposals nowalso advocated by the final report of the Macrory Review47. There will be coordinatedcompliance activity through existing agencies and inspectorates and by bringing somerelated activities together into a MMO. This will build upon the regulatory regimescurrently in place for fisheries and for development and licensing controls, and will beconsistent with the new requirements of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.Administrative and operational efficiencies and economies of scale will also come frombringing Government functions together within a new MMO. In Wales the approach toachieving similar operational efficiencies and economies of scale is to bring together policydevelopment and policy delivery within the Welsh Assembly Government.60

1.35 Our proposals will provide transparent and equitable arrangements for managing marineactivities and protecting marine resources that reduce risks for business, contribute toconservation efforts and reflect public interests. We have only made proposals to regulatewhere it is needed and will not introduce measures where there is no evidence that they arenecessary. When we do regulate we will do so in a way that is proportionate to the risks.

11

1. Introduction

Geographic scope1.36 To ensure that activities are managed at the appropriate level by electorally-accountable

bodies, the UK Parliament has devolved many functions to Scotland, Wales and NorthernIreland. In this White Paper, we collectively refer to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh andNorthern Ireland Assemblies, and the ministers and administrations working alongsidethem as the devolved administrations.

1.37 Each devolved administration develops its own solutions to best suit its own needs. Theability to set priorities and take action based on local needs is an important part ofachieving sustainable development and protection of the marine area. We are committedto working together to meet our shared goals without compromising the strengths thatour diversity of approach offers.

1.38 The Marine Bill proposals are structured to link coherently with devolved administrationresponsibilities. Where proposals relate to issues where responsibility has been devolved,then whether and how they will apply will be determined by the devolved administrations.The sections of this White Paper provide more detail on how each of the proposals willwork in each part of the UK.

1.39 Northern Ireland’s ministers support the introduction of a Marine Bill, extending fully toNorthern Ireland, whilst respecting the devolution settlement and a streamlined andmodernised framework for managing the marine environment based on the principles ofsustainable development. This commitment is reflected by the inclusion of thedevelopment, by 2008, of a policy and legislative framework for protecting the marineenvironment as one of the key targets in Northern Ireland’s Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy, published in May 2006. Final decisions on the nature of marine managementstructures in Northern Ireland will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly onrestoration of devolution.

1.40 The commitment to Northern Ireland’s involvement in the Marine Bill takes account of theongoing Review of Environmental Governance in Northern Ireland, which commenced inFebruary 2006. The recommendations from the Review, expected later this year, will shapeenvironmental governance in Northern Ireland and support sustainable development.Northern Ireland has a unique position in the UK, sharing a land border with anotherMember State. Mechanisms must facilitate consultation and build on existing cooperationwith the Republic of Ireland on marine matters, which will become increasingly important ina European context. The proposed MMO will have responsibilities in relation to England andNorthern Ireland and, in each case, the adjacent UK territorial sea and the UK offshore area.

1.41 The Government of Wales Act 2006 changes the devolution settlement for Wales. It:

• creates a formal legal separation between the National Assembly for Wales (thelegislature) and the Welsh Assembly Government (the executive);

• transfers most of the current functions of the National Assembly for Wales to Welshministers, including the ability to make secondary legislation; and

• enables the National Assembly for Wales to seek legislative competence from the UKParliament to make a new category of legislation – Assembly Measures.

12

1. Introduction

1.42 The Marine Bill may include provisions specifically relating to Welsh ministers or theNational Assembly for Wales. Welsh ministers and the National Assembly for Wales willhave the tools to deliver our shared strategic goals for the marine environment in theareas for which they have responsibility. Welsh ministers are considering making a proposalfor further devolution in relation to fisheries management and nature conservation.

1.43 The Government is committed to working with the Scottish Executive and the otherdevolved administrations to ensure that marine activities are managed coherently andeffectively. Since devolution, much policy and legislative responsibility in relation to themarine area out to 12 nautical miles in Scotland has been devolved. Policy and legislativeresponsibility beyond 12 nautical miles, in the offshore area adjacent to Scotland, is alsodevolved in important respects, particularly in relation to marine fisheries and marineaggregates. Scottish ministers also have other executive powers in the offshore area,including in relation to marine licensing. Where proposals relate to issues whereresponsibility has been devolved, then whether and how they will apply will be determinedby the Scottish Executive. The UK Government would work closely with Scottish ministerson any legislative proposals that would impact on their devolved competence or thelegislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to ensure the benefits of devolution arefully taken into account. In addition, the UK Government in partnership with the ScottishExecutive is actively reviewing the appropriate balance of responsibilities in relation to thenew powers proposed through this legislation.

1.44 The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are Crown Dependencies that are not part of theUnited Kingdom. They legislate for their own territorial waters. Our proposals take accountof arrangements with Crown Dependencies. We will work with them to consider anyimpacts that new arrangements might have and seek joined up approaches acrossadministrative boundaries.

Regulatory Impact Assessment1.45 An accompanying Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) supports the proposals in this

White Paper. We are developing this partial RIA alongside the development of theproposals for the Marine Bill. It represents a significant step forward from the RIA thatsupported the 2006 Marine Bill consultation as it focuses on the costs and benefits of thespecific proposals that we have chosen to pursue. It will be developed into a full RIA as wemove towards introduction of a Marine Bill into the UK Parliament. We are gatheringfurther information on costs and benefits and we will take into account any furtherevidence submitted during consultation on this White Paper.

1.46 The changing nature of the marine environment and the pressures faced mean thatGovernment policy and legislation must be responsive and adaptable. The detail of someproposals will therefore be implemented through secondary legislation. Where this is the case,any such future regulation will be subject to further detailed RIAs and public consultation.

13

1. Introduction

2.1 Some activities that take place on land can have a significant impact on the marineenvironment and vice versa. This makes considered management of coastal areas particularlyimportant. Some sectors are also active both on land and at sea, and developments can haveboth marine and land based elements. The systems that we introduce for the marine areamust therefore accommodate the complex interrelationships in coastal areas.

2.2 The UK has a long coastline relative to its total area (see Table 1). The length and diversenature of this coastline means that there will be different activities taking place in differentareas and the interplay between activities on land and at sea will have varying effects onone another depending on their location.

Table 1: Total length in km of the coastline of United Kingdom (adapted from the Joint Nature ConservationCommittee’s resource survey of Great Britain, with addition of Northern Ireland information)

Geographic area Length km % of UK coast

United Kingdom total 19488

England 5496 28.2%

Scotland (mainland) 6482 33.3%

Scotland (islands) 5295 27.2%

Wales 1562 8.0%

Northern Ireland 650 3.3%

2.3 Currently there are well-developed land planning systems managed largely by localauthorities whilst in the marine area there are sectoral management arrangements that fallprincipally to central Government departments. However, there is a vast array of otherorganisations that have a role in planning and management of activities both on land andat sea which, allied to the diversity of economic and social interests, come together withina complex set of arrangements for managing activities and assets in our coastal areas.

2.4 This has been recognised both nationally and internationally. The UK Government hasrecognised the need to improve coastal management arrangements and communicationbetween those with an interest. The need for improved coastal management grows aspressures on land and sea increase whether through demands on space or as a result ofchanging environmental conditions such as those brought about by climate change.

2.5 In 2002 the European Community recognised the need for an improved approach toenable integrated management in coastal areas and adopted a Recommendationconcerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM).27 In thesame year the UK Government and devolved administrations outlined their intention todevelop a new, shared vision for the future of our coastal areas which would beunderpinned by ICZM.7

2.6 ICZM means the adoption of an integrated or joined up approach towards the manydifferent interests in both the land and marine components of the coast. It is the processof harmonising the different policies and decision-making structures, and bringingtogether coastal stakeholders, to encourage concerted action towards achieving commongoals. It means that we consider the coast and activities on land and at sea in a holisticway, looking at issues in the widest context.

14

2. Integration between land and sea

2.7 UK Government and the devolved administrations are already seeking to promote anintegrated approach to management across our coasts. Each administration has beenpreparing separate draft national strategies on ICZM, or more generally on marine andcoastal management, reflecting the particular circumstances and needs of their owncoastline.20, 54, 62 The UK Government and devolved administrations work closely together toachieve a strategic coastal management approach for the UK as a whole, and to ensureharmonisation between processes around the coastline.

2.8 UK Government already encourages cooperative working in the preparation ofdevelopment plans, between the local authorities around estuaries and on stretches of theopen coast, and emphasises the need to involve fully other relevant bodies with an interest.

2.9 The Marine Bill will help deliver further integration and the principles of integratedmanagement are embedded throughout our proposals. A marine planning system willprovide the strategic focus and will take account of, and be considered by land planningarrangements. That includes plans, guidance and policies for shoreline management, riverbasin management and the land planning system. This will also help us to deliver ourobligations under the Water Framework Directive (WFD)26 and a future Marine StrategyDirective.

2.10 The Government is committed to improving recreational access to the English coast. Itsaim is to provide a right to walk along the English coast, promoting understanding of thenatural environment and an enjoyable recreational experience. We want to focus initiallyon areas of greatest benefit as part of a longer-term programme and deliver wildlife andlandscape improvements as well as improved access. Defra will be consulting shortly onthe basis of advice from Natural England (NE). ‘Wales: a Better Country’, the strategicagenda for the Welsh Assembly Government made a commitment to improve publicaccess to the coast.59 Options are being developed and the aim is to link up existing pathsto form a single all-Wales Coastal Path.

2.11 We are also giving careful consideration to other proposals, such as the Local GovernmentWhite Paper: Strong and Prosperous Communities6 and those that may result from anyrecommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee Coastal Towns inquiry.49

We will ensure that we take all developments into account.

15

2. Integration between land and sea

16

3.1 Our proposals highlight the importance of high quality marine data. In particular, thecreation of a MMO will provide a renewed focus and centre of expertise for the collection,storage and accessibility of data.

3.2 A sound evidence base is essential for making informed policy and management decisions.It is generally the case that we know less about the marine environment than we do aboutthe environment on land, although the waters around the UK are relatively well studiedcompared to most countries and a significant amount of data already exists. A key factorfor any existing or new marine management arrangements is the collection, availabilityand use of suitable up-to-date data and information relating to the marine area.

3.3 Many respondents to the 2006 Marine Bill consultation commented on data issues. Themost common comment was the need for appropriate scientific data and information toprovide an evidence based approach to policy-making both at a strategic level (planning)and local marine management decisions (licensing, enforcement and nature conservation).The Bill was seen by many to provide an opportunity to develop a comprehensive marinedatabase with ‘fit for purpose’ marine data and information. This was seen to beparticularly important for marine planning, which needs a range of information types(environmental and social) on regional and local scales, which look at present conditionsand predict the future. There were concerns that in some cases information on the marineenvironment may currently be insufficient to support decisions, but there were alsoopinions that limited information should not preclude planning and adoption of anadaptive approach to management as data availability improves.

3.4 It was recognised in ‘Safeguarding Our Seas’ that the best available scientific evidencemust inform the stewardship of the marine environment. The report went on to outlinethe need for greater integration of government marine monitoring programmes,particularly in the light of the desire to move towards an ecosystem-based approach tomarine management. Subsequent work on the production of the state of the seas report –Charting Progress – has reinforced the need for greater integration and led to theconclusion that significant re-structuring was required of the arrangements for collecting,collating, storing and interpreting marine data. These actions are being taken forward aspart of the UKMMAS and the MDIP.

3.5 The new UKMMAS will enhance the UK’s capability to collect and respond to the evidencerequired to assess if the desired state of our marine area is being achieved. It will ensurethat the various marine monitoring activities undertaken in the UK are coordinated and fitfor purpose. The planning process proposed draws heavily on the UKMMAS.

3.6 The data collected under the UKMMAS accounts for only part of the marine data collectedfor many reasons including site surveys and research. Although some data gaps exist,some of the data needed to make marine assessments and management decisions hasbeen collected but is inaccessible for one reason or another. Significant resources can bespent attempting to access data already collected or in repeating data collection alreadyundertaken.

3. Environmental data and information

3.7 In 2005, MDIP was established between UK Government, the devolved administrationsand a number of agencies and industry to work towards our vision of data stewardship(collect once – use many times). MDIP is working to improve the accessibility and storageof marine data across the UK, identifying best practice and recognised standards andmaking it easier to locate and access UK marine data. We want to maintain a network ofUK Marine Data Archive Centres (DACs) to ensure secure long-term archiving of keymarine data sets.

3.8 Working closely with MDIP, the Marine Environmental Data Action Group (MEDAG) isdeveloping the guidelines for data management and exchange. MEDAG also activelycollate the information in databases and catalogues. Both MDIP and MEDAG are ensuringthat the UK is fully compliant with current national and international data managementagreements. It is the responsibility of member organisations to implement MDIP andMEDAG guidance. We want the data stewardship initiatives to ensure that as much dataas possible is made available to agreed standards at proportionate cost. We are alsoworking to achieve greater harmonisation and coordination of marine data collection andstorage, and improved access to historic data and data collected in future. We intend thatthe MMO will work closely with MDIP and MEDAG to contribute to a culture of sharing,improved access and reuse of data.

3.9 Our proposals, coupled with existing initiatives, will shape the way that marine data andinformation are collected, handled and used in future. Subsequent sections of this WhitePaper set out the expected data management needs for each of our proposals. The newmarine planning system and body to operate it will provide a focus for related marine dataacquisition and storage. It will need to secure access to a broad range of data typescollected by industry, regulators and other organisations and present it in a user friendlyway. The outputs of the planning process must also be able to be shared. This new focusfor collating data should lead to national standards and protocols for marine data and willimprove data consistency and availability. This more strategic and efficient approach willprovide benefits beyond the planning system to other aspects of marine stewardship.

17

3. Environmental data and information

18

Our Aim

To create a strategic marine planning system that will clarify our marine objectives andpriorities for the future, and direct decision-makers and users towards more efficient,sustainable use and protection of our marine resources.

Summary of our proposals4.1 The United Kingdom is surrounded by seas of vital environmental, cultural and economic

importance, which face ever-increasing pressures, such as from the impacts of climatechange and competing marine industries. We do not plan ahead to cope with thesepressures in the way that we do on land.

4.2 It is now essential that we look more strategically at the whole of the marine environment,the way that we use and protect our resources and the interactions between differentactivities that affect them. This will require a shift in practice to a much more integratedapproach to managing ecosystems, but the case for doing so is now compelling.

4.3 A new system of marine planninga must be a key element of our new approach to marinemanagement. We intend to adopt a strategic, plan-led approach to marine activities thatwill offer benefits to marine regulators and users. It will help us secure the maximumsustainable benefits from our marine resources, whilst ensuring appropriate environmentalprotection.

4.4 Effective marine planning will require a clear statement of our policies for UK waters as awhole, before consideration of the demands on specific sea areas. For that reason weintend to adopt a straightforward two-stage approach to planning:

• the creation of a UK marine policy statement, agreed by all UK Governmentdepartments and the devolved administrations, which will articulate our joint vision andobjectives for the marine environment and its uses; and

• the creation of a series of marine plans, which will implement the policy statement inspecific areas, using information about spatial uses and needs in those areas.

Geographic scope4.5 We are keen to ensure the best approach to marine management that is possible

throughout UK waters. Within those waters, since 1999 the responsibility for a number ofmarine issues has been devolved to the administrations in Scotland, Wales and NorthernIreland, so we want to make sure that any proposals we take forward reflect thatdevolution framework.

4. Planning in the marine area

a Marine planning as proposed in this White Paper means undertaking forward-looking activities to create policy statements orplans. It does not refer to what, in the context of land use planning, is generally referred to as ‘development control’, i.e. theneed for permission for particular acts of development. This aspect of management is addressed within our proposals for thelicensing system in section 5.

19

4.6 Our proposals for marine planning will apply differently throughout UK waters. UKGovernment and the devolved administrations intend to come together to jointly agree aUK marine policy statement. The responsibility for developing plans to implement thatpolicy statement will fall to different administrations depending on where they havecompetence to act. Any future planning in the UK territorial waters within Scotland will betaken forward through separate legislation, and Scottish ministers in consultation withtheir Advisory Group on Marine and Coastal Strategy (AGMACS) are currently consideringthe most appropriate approach to this.

Rationale for planning ahead4.7 It has become clear that, to varying degrees in the different parts of UK waters, the current

complex framework of domestic and international legislation used to manage the UK’s seascan make effective decision-making difficult. There is increasing demand on marine spaceand resources, partly because of both the expansion of some industries, such as thetransportation of goods by ship, and also newer developments such as offshore windfarms. These changes in marine use have meant that conflicts can arise between differentactivities. We want to plan ahead to try to address these conflicts, and also to think aboutpotential future marine uses, such as tidal and wave energy generation, at the same time.

4.8 We are gaining an increasing awareness of our impact on the marine environment, andthe importance of a healthy marine environment to our wellbeing. Protection of marineresources now and for the future is a key element of our marine policy. Whilst at presentthere are effective rules in place to enable us to consider the impacts of individual activitieson marine resources and the environment as a whole, it can be difficult to judge thecombined effects of lots of activities over time. We want to be proactive towards achievingnature conservation objectives, rather than relying only upon the current reactive approachof Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and sectoral Strategic EnvironmentalAssessments (SEAs).

4.9 To manage the marine environment effectively, we must consider the whole marineecosystem, interactions within it, and how it might change into the future. This is why the UK Government and devolved administrations’ 2002 Marine Stewardship Report‘Safeguarding our Seas’ stated our intention to put an ecosystem based approach at theheart of our marine policy.7 This report was also our first commitment to exploring amarine planning system in the UK.

4.10 The consultation on proposals for a Marine Bill in March 2006 confirmed clear support fora robust but flexible planning mechanism. With this in mind, we want to create a systemthat will:

• coordinate and set clear policies and objectives in one place, which will help to bringtogether consideration of economic, social, cultural and environmental needs in themarine area;

• ensure that policy is being implemented through specific decisions that are made in themarine area;

• ensure that UK Government and devolved administration policy provides betterguidance and clarity to decision-makers, and greater certainty to users;


20

• consider how the marine environment is currently being used, what spatial needsdifferent activities have, how new technologies are emerging and the nature ofactivities is changing;

• consider the need to protect ecosystems and valuable natural resources, and betterunderstand and manage the cumulative effects of different marine activities, both onthe ecosystem and each other;

• make more efficient use of available marine space, striking a considered balancebetween competing pressures, and consider how activities can in some instances belocated in the same area for mutual benefit;

• look ahead at the predicted impacts of climate change on the marine environment,how marine activities contribute towards it, and also how they are affected by it; and

• provide a point of focus for bringing together and considering the views of all thosewith an interest in the marine environment, and allow them to have a strong influenceover what happens there.

Regulating better4.11 One of the most important elements of this plan-led approach is the way in which it can

create improvements in decision-making in the marine area. The planning system willinform and guide marine regulators and users, and make the national and local context inwhich decisions are being made clearer. The planning system will develop with theinvolvement of a range of interests across government and with the participation of a rangeof stakeholders from an early stage. This will promote more confidence in decisions that arelater made in the context of the plan, and create greater certainty for marine users.

Setting a clear direction: a shared UK marine policy statement

The need for clear policy

4.12 We want to articulate a clear policy for the marine environment that will provide a soundbasis on which to make marine plans and decisions. This will help to ensure that activitiesthat use the marine environment, and the management approaches addressing them, areall operating in a way that will implement our marine policy.

4.13 Our domestic policy about the way that marine resources should be used and protectedhas developed over a number of years. Our international obligations that apply to themarine area have also increased. Since devolution in 1999, the administrations in Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland have developed their own policies for the marine areas andissues within their respective jurisdiction.

4.14 Wherever possible, the different UK Government departments and devolvedadministrations work together to agree policies and implement obligations. Inevitably,sometimes policies for different issues, such as energy, transport and biodiversity, aredeveloped at different times and communicated separately. This can lead to a lack ofclarity about what our priorities are, and this can make decision-making and resolution ofconflicts more difficult.


21

4.15 We now want to move towards a more integrated approach to marine management. Forthat reason, we intend that the first stage of the marine planning system should be thecreation of a UK marine policy statement. The statement would set out both our short andlonger-term objectives for the marine environment and would be created with the clearpurpose of contributing towards the sustainable use of the marine environment. It wouldprovide general guidance to marine regulators and users, but would also be specificallyimplemented through marine plans and decisions, and would therefore help steer ustowards our vision for the marine environment.

Working together

4.16 The UK Government and devolved administrations intend to jointly prepare and agree thestatement so that it applies to the whole of the UK’s waters, but may also reflect somespecific policies or objectives that apply in the area of a particular administration. Thisshared approach will ensure that the diversity of planning arrangements implementedthroughout UK waters will be fully joined up, but flexible enough to meet the needs ofdifferent stakeholders and decision-makers in different parts of the UK.

Our marine vision and goals

4.17 We have already begun the process of coordinating marine policy. In response to the‘Safeguarding Our Seas’ strategy in 2002, UK Government and the devolved administrationsfor the first time jointly stated an overall vision for the marine environment as ‘clean, healthy,safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas’. We followed this with the creationof several strategic goals that would help us to move towards that vision. Placing theecosystem approach at the heart of our strategy meant that we were recognising theessential processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment, andrecognising that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of andtherefore reliant upon healthy ecosystems. This is important for sustainable development.

Marine objectives

4.18 We now want to elaborate on our vision, and build on our strategic goals, and look athow they relate to the key issues and policies of today. To take forward effective marinemanagement and monitoring we need to articulate more detailed policies and objectives.

4.19 We already have a number of objectives, for example as a result of European legislation.Of particular significance, the European Commission published a proposal for a MarineStrategy Directive in October 2005, which is currently being considered by Member Statesand the European Parliament. The current draft Directive agreed at the EnvironmentCouncil in December 2006 requires us to aim to achieve good environmental status in themarine area by 2021 at the latest and contains provisions for how the definition of thisstatus will be determined. We need to ensure that our marine objectives enable us tomeet this requirement and that the programme of work to implement this Directive is asintegrated as possible with our marine planning system. The Water Framework Directive(WFD), which requires us to aim to achieve good ecological and chemical status by 2015in coastal and transitional waters out to one nautical mile, is also of key relevance to ourmarine policy.26


22

4.20 We want the shared UK marine policy statement to help us deliver our European andinternational commitments, alongside domestic priorities, such as the target we have toachieve 10% of energy needs from renewable sources by 2010. However, the marineobjectives we currently have vary in levels of aspiration, robustness and measurability, sowe want to ensure we can clarify how they relate to each other.

4.21 As we develop the shared UK marine policy statement, we want to be able to look acrossour set of objectives, reconcile them as far as possible, and decide on priorities betweenthem, based on current UK Government thinking.

4.22 We want marine objectives that will allow us to clarify the limits within which sustainabledevelopment needs to operate, and create measurable targets for ecosystem health andbiodiversity. They should help marine users and decision-makers to assess the impacts ofproposed activities on the marine ecosystems and on each other. More specific objectiveswill also enable us to monitor the condition of the marine environment.

4.23 We intend to consider where there are gaps in our marine objectives, and where we arenot taking action to achieve elements of our overall vision. There will be a limit to howquickly we can develop new objectives. Initially they will reflect areas where we havecomparatively greater knowledge about marine ecosystems and activities. They will needto be adaptable, so we can change them as scientific knowledge increases. To ensure thisadaptability they will not be written into legislation, but by incorporating them into thestatutory planning system we can ensure they apply throughout decision-making.

Further considerations

4.24 The precise content and objectives within the shared UK marine policy statement will reflectthe priorities of the UK Government and devolved administrations at the time of itsdevelopment. However to ensure the statement can best provide a context for making plansand decisions, there are certain considerations which will undoubtedly need to be addressed.

4.25 Current trends and anticipated future changes within the marine environment, such as thegrowth of marine industries and the impacts of climate change would need to beidentified to ensure our policies are as relevant as possible. Areas of uncertainty and howwe should deal with these would also need to be taken into account.

4.26 We will need to describe a range of marine issues, such as energy, protection ofbiodiversity or heritage, transport, mineral extraction, major infrastructure and defence,and explain what our policies and priorities are for each. This will include identifying whatthe future spatial requirements of certain activities are likely to be, where this is known.Current and emerging strategies and reviews would need to be considered, and wherepolicies apply more widely than the marine environment the marine elements would needto be considered in the context of the policy as a whole.

4.27 The balance and relative priority of different policies and activities would need to beevaluated, making difficult choices where necessary, using a sound evidence base andwhere practicable, an assessment of the costs and benefits. We would consider thecompatibility and conflicts between different priorities. We would integrate policies as faras possible, resolving conflicts and creating common objectives wherever possible.


4.28 Integration between marine and land issues is important. Consideration would be given toterrestrial planning developments and key issues in coastal areas, such as tourism, ports,economic development and coastal erosion and flooding. We are committed to anintegrated approach to management of coastal areas and this would need to be appliedthroughout the development of the policy statement. Objectives from our strategies onIntegrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) would need to be incorporated into thepolicy statement, which would mean that organisations making decisions in marine andcoastal waters would be implementing this approach through their activities.

Preparation and review

4.29 We want the first shared UK marine policy statement to be prepared, adopted byministers, and published widely within a period of two years after a Marine Act receivedRoyal Assent. Throughout the preparation process, the Secretary of State and devolvedadministrations would need to:

• seek advice from organisations with relevant marine experience and expertise, toenhance the robustness of proposed objectives;

• make use of up to date marine science and data where it is available, to ensure anevidence based approach to policy;

• ensure wide public participation and awareness of progress; and

• consider the economic, social and environmental impacts and feasibility of the contentof the statement, and be clear about how it would create an improved approach tomarine management. We will also consider whether a formal SEA of the policystatement would be needed.

Monitoring progress

4.30 Although we envisage the statement would address longer-term objectives, particularly onissues like climate change, in the shorter term, our marine policies will adapt to addressthe changing degree or nature of human activities or environmental pressures. We need toensure therefore that it is reviewed and updated regularly.

4.31 We will aim to monitor whether decisions are being made in accordance with thestatement, and therefore whether they are supporting the achievement of our vision andgoals. We will adopt a proportionate and risk based approach to this, as it would beimpractical to review every decision taken in the marine environment.

4.32 More widely, we already have in place, jointly led by joint UK Government and thedevolved administrations, a UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS),which gives us the power to answer questions about the state of our marine ecosystemand to document ecosystem trends. We want to feed back this information into ourmarine management systems so that we can adjust our objectives and decisions we maketo allow us to address areas of concern. Alongside any specific objectives in the statement,we will wish to use indicators to help us identify how well they are being achieved. Thisreview process will help us ensure that our statement remains relevant and useful.

23


24

Translating policy into plans

The nature of marine plans

4.33 The shared UK marine policy statement would apply throughout UK seas. However, use ofmarine space and resources varies widely in different areas. We therefore intend that thesecond stage of the marine planning process should be the creation of a series of marineplans, applying to specific geographic areas and providing a spatial context.

4.34 Because marine planning is a new concept in the UK, we will need to ensure the system isevolutionary, and adapts as we learn lessons and obtain increasing amounts of informationabout the marine environment and the impact planning is having on it. This White Paperexplains the outline process for developing plans that we want to embed in legislation. Inaddition, there is a need for further exploration and evaluation of the range of tools andtechniques that might be used within the plans, so that they can guide activitieseffectively. This work will be ongoing in coming months.

Case study: Marine Spatial Planning in Belgium

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP), covering Belgium’s territorial sea and Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ), developed on an ad hoc basis, mainly driven by international and Europeanenvironmental protection commitments and increasing opportunities for the exploitation ofthe marine environment. The need for a more comprehensive approach toward spatialplanning for Belgian waters became particularly urgent in light of new objectives andassociated targets such as the need for offshore energy production and the development ofthe European network of protected areas (Natura 2000).

Central to the Belgian legislative framework for MSP is a system of permits linked withenvironmental impact assessments.

At the policy level, a ‘Master Plan’ for the entire Belgian territorial sea and EEZ was developed.The ‘Master Plan’ provided a translation of current and future objectives of various sectors intoa spatial vision. The first two phases of the ‘Master Plan’ focus on spatial delimitations forsand and gravel extraction and a zone for future offshore wind energy projects (Phase 1),followed by the delimitation of marine protected areas as part of the EU Natura 2000Network (Phase 2).

At the scientific level, the discussions regarding new uses and requirements of the sea andseabed at both the national and international scene led to the GAUFRE study that made itpossible to anticipate new developments in a balanced and sustainable way. Rather thanmapping the uses of the Belgian part of the North Sea, the aim of the study was to producemaps and plans that would enable policy-makers and end users to envisage different ways inwhich Belgian waters might be spatially managed in the future.

Sources:

‘GAUFRE’: Towards a Spatial Structure Plan For Sustainable Management of the Sea, Maes et al, SPSD-II/Mixed ResearchActions (Belgian Science Policy, 2005) pp. 39-298.

The International Perspective: Lessons from recent European experience with Marine Spatial Planning. Douvere, F and Ehler, C.N. UNESCO, Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB) and the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC), June 2006.


25

UK administrations working together

4.35 Marine planning must reflect the framework of devolution in place within the UK. For thisreason, the marine planning activity taken forward will be the responsibility of differentadministrations, either solely or jointly, in the different parts of UK waters. Theseresponsibilities are described in the following paragraphs and in the map, see figure 2.

UK territorial waters within Scotland

4.36 Subject to new legislation in the Scottish Parliament, Scottish ministers would take any plansprepared in the UK territorial waters within Scotland forward, but giving appropriateconsideration to matters outside of Scottish ministers’ responsibilities. Scottish ministers,assisted by AGMACS are currently considering whether and how new legislation is requiredand how it might be implemented.

All other areas

4.37 In the offshore area adjacent to Scotland, we intend that UK Government and Scottishministers would be jointly responsible for planning. We would build in flexibility to addressparticular areas such as Rockall, which form part of Scotland but are further offshore.

4.38 The Welsh ministers would be responsible for planning in UK territorial waters withinWales, but the agreement of UK Government would be needed in relation to any mattersthat are outside of the Welsh Assembly Government’s responsibility.

4.39 The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland (DOE) would be responsible forplans for UK territorial waters within Northern Ireland, but the agreement of UKGovernment would be needed in relation to any matters outside of the responsibility ofNorthern Ireland departments. Northern Ireland also has some responsibilities offshorewithin its fisheries zone, and in this area the UK Government and the DOE would bejointly responsible for planning.

4.40 In all other areas, the UK Government would be responsible for marine planning.

4.41 There would need to be flexibility built into this framework, should we wish to change ourapproach in future. Our proposals would enable the different administrations to prepareplans jointly across administrative boundaries, or across the division between territorial andoffshore waters. This could be important in cross-border estuaries, given our commitmentto integrated coastal management and our WFD obligations to consider river basinsholistically. We need to ensure joined up thinking at all plan boundaries – planning jointlyis not the only solution.

4.42 The Irish Sea represents a particular challenge because of the complexities of jurisdiction,but UK Government and the devolved administrations are committed to working togetherto create the most sensible approach. We are also building a sound working relationshipwith the Isle of Man.

Planning Body

4.43 We intend that ministers and departments within UK Government and the devolvedadministrations should either carry out aspects of the preparation of marine plans


26

themselves, or delegate responsibility for this activity to another body. In describing thebroad planning process in the following section, we refer to a generic ‘planning body’, forease of reference in relation to whichever organisation, or organisations jointly are takingforward the process. Our current thinking on how this will work in practice is explained in4.98 – 4.110.

Figure 2: Responsibility for Marine Planning in UK waters

UK territorial and internal waters within Wales (max 12 nm from baseline) – The Welsh ministersresponsible for planning, seeking agreement of UKGovernment in relation to matters outside of theWelsh ministers responsibility.

UK territorial and internal waters within Scotland (max. 12nm from baseline) – Any proposals forplanning will be taken forward by the Scottish ministersto the Scottish Parliament, giving the appropriateconsideration to matters outside of their responsibilities.This is the only area outside the UK Bill.

UK Waters adjacent to Scotland – UK Governmentand Scotland jointly responsibility for planning.

UK territorial and internal waters withinNorthern Ireland (max. 12nm from baseline) DOEresponsible for planning, seeking agreement of theUK Government in relation to any matters outsidethe responsibility of Northern Ireland departments.

Internal waters in England and the UK territorialsea and UK waters adjacent to it – UKGovernment responsible for planning.

Northern Ireland Fisheries Zone – UK Governmentand DOE jointly responsible for planning.

This map is reproduced from Ordanance Survey material with the permission of Ordanance Survey on behalf of the Her Majasty’s StationeryOffice © Crown Copyright

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead toprosecution or civil proceedings

Defra Licence number 100018880, 2006

© British Crown & SeaZone Solutions Ltd, 2006. All Rights Reserved.Data Licence No. 032003.007


27

Scope of plans

Coverage

4.44 It is our intention along with the devolved administrations to create marine plans to coverthe whole of UK waters. Plans would need to represent the three dimensional nature ofthe marine environment by addressing the seabed and area below it, the whole of thewater column and area above it.

4.45 Plans would exist from Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) to the fullest extent of the UK’smarine jurisdiction (the UK continental shelf and fisheries limits). This coverage means thatmarine planning will overlap with the terrestrial planning system between MHWS and theMean Low Water Mark (MLWM). However, this is inevitable if marine and land planning areto be able to address the whole of the marine and terrestrial environments respectively, andnot be restricted by an artificial boundary at the coast. Indeed the geographic overlapbetween marine and existing plans should compel different organisations to work effectivelytogether and strive to ensure that sensible harmonisation of plans is achieved. National andlocal objectives in coastal areas could be reinforced in each of the different plans.

4.46 The planning body would determine the geographic area to be covered by each plan.Where planning is the joint responsibility of more than one administration, boundarieswould have to be agreed jointly. It is envisaged that the extent of each region will takeinto account the amount, nature and complexity of marine activity in the region, as well asecological considerations and physical features. The administrative boundaries betweenthe different administrations would be a strong factor in determining plan boundaries. Inidentifying the planning areas, the planning body would be expected to consult interestedparties, as well as to examine the available science and data. It will be important thatadjacent plans complement each other, so that they can as far as possible provideconsistent guidance to marine users that operate across planning boundaries.

4.47 The differing nature of activity in different areas of UK waters means that some areas mayneed far more detailed plans than others. Where use of a marine area is particularly heavyor complex (e.g. estuaries or near busy ports), or local issues or conflicts have alreadyarisen, plans may need to be developed on a smaller scale or in more detail.

Timing

4.48 It is likely that marine plans will be created gradually in a phased approach, in line with the available resource of the planning body, and where it is felt plans are needed most, or earliest.

4.49 Plans would be reviewed on a regular basis. The more up to date plans are, the moreuseful they will be, but this must be set against the formalities and effort that accompanytheir preparation and revision. The duration of plans must therefore be kept withinmanageable limits, and be determined by the degree to which the science, policy or dataon which existing plans are based have changed.


4.50 Based on the outcome of the MSP pilot that was operated in the Irish Sea, and responsesto the 2006 Marine Bill consultation which discussed other marine managementprocesses, we anticipate that the first plans will cover a period of 20 to 25 years from thedate of adoption, and will be subject to review and revision at least every 6 years. It isunlikely that plans would need complete revision at each of these reviews.

Subject matter

4.51 We want to create plans that consider, as far as possible, all of the relevant activities in anarea and the impact they may have on each other. We intend that they will address boththe current situation, and also emerging and future marine uses and technologies, such asfor example carbon capture and storage in the sub-seabed, tidal and wave energyinitiatives and new Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs). They will seek to anticipatechanging economic, commercial and social trends and the impacts of climate change.Plans would also consider both the natural and cultural resources within an area, and thechanging ecosystems and seasonal patterns and migration routes by adopting a temporalapproach in some areas.

4.52 The scale and nature of the location of the plan being prepared would also have somebearing on the level of detailed information it includes. It is likely that not all issues will beapplicable in any given area, however we anticipate that broadly the sorts of issues thatmight feature in plans are:

Human activities and associated infrastructure

Aquaculture

Artificial reefs

Bio-prospecting

Carbon capture and storage

Coastal land use

Desalination

Diffuse and point source contamination and discharges from marine, land and riverine inputs

Diving – recreational and otherwise

Dredging – different techniques, and for different purposes

Drilling

Dumping (e.g. disposal of dredged materials), sewerage and waste disposal(and associated infrastructure)

Excavation and recovery of wrecks

Fisheries

Flood and coastal erosion risk management

Marine historic assets, such as wrecks

28


29

Military and defence activities, including aviationb

Mineral extraction

Offshore housing, factories, airports and hubs for trans-shipping

Oil and gas exploration, storage and production, including associated pipelines and cables

Ports and navigation

Recreational activities – including fisheries, boating, bathing, watersports and swimming

Renewable energy (and associated interconnectors)

Salvage operations, e.g. following an emergency, or for dismantling structures (Sailing and use of hovercraft)

Shipping activity including shipping channels

Submarine cables

Tidal barrages

Tourism

Undersea mining

Natural resources, features and processes

Biodiversity – including genetic, species, community and habitat diversity

Climate change – adapting to and mitigating impact

‘Circulation systems’ and food chains

Geological / geomorphological features

Ecological and physico-chemical processes

Designated sites for ecological or heritage purposes

Habitats, breeding grounds, nurseries and migration routes

Marine Conservation Zones

Meteorological changes – wind, wave and tide

Nationally important and/or protected species

Sea surface, water column sea bed and beneath the sea bed

Seascapes

Sites of archaeological importance

b Unclassified activities only


30

Proportionality

4.53 Although it is important that plans adopt a comprehensive view of the areas they areaddressing, we must adopt a proportionate and flexible approach to the level of detailthey can contain. They will not be unduly prescriptive on matters about which there is agreat deal of certainty, or which are of little relevance to the area in question. We intendto examine methods, and the extent to which plans can address mobile activities, and howthey can incorporate a temporal element in relation to non-continuous or seasonal uses ofmarine areas.

Preparing plans

Wider public engagement in the planning process

4.54 We want the marine planning system to be as open and transparent as possible. Earlyengagement of the public, industry, local government, regulators and stakeholder groupsin the planning process is fundamental to achieving its objectives. We want to give thosewith an interest the chance to get involved in deciding on the broad scope of the plan aswell as in the later preparation stages. This would lead to better planning, and give thosewho might be affected by a plan a role in shaping it, enabling them to share ownership ofthe final product.

4.55 Early and broad consultation, at a stage when any concerns and issues raised can beaddressed and reflected in the plans, would also lead to greater certainty for developerssubmitting licence applications. At present, developers have often made significantfinancial commitment to a project before such concerns are raised. The new system willhelp to avoid this, by giving people the opportunity to raise issues before applications aresubmitted, and for developers to begin a project with better information. There would begreater certainty to developers in knowing that decisions about projects are less at riskfrom challenge, if they are based on a plan that has wide support.

4.56 Involvement in consultation on the plan would not prevent issues and objections beingraised at a later stage in response to specific licence applications.

4.57 We intend the planning body to publish a statement at the start of the planning processof whom they propose to consult during the preparation and drafting of the plan, andhow they intend to carry out that consultation. The planning body would then beexpected to proceed in accordance with that statement and seek input and approval fromrelevant ministers and Government departments at all appropriate stages. This wouldensure transparent consultation and that all with an interest were aware of theopportunities that they and others were being given to contribute.

4.58 In particular, we want the planning body to seek the views of stakeholders on the mattersthat should be included in the plan before the detailed work of producing a plan begins.Involvement at this stage from stakeholders with knowledge of the specific factorsaffecting an industry, or a particular marine region, will be crucial to the success of theplan. The Crown Estate, as owner of 55% of the foreshore and virtually the entire seabedout to 12 nautical miles will have a key role to play in this process.


Appraisal of the impacts of the plan

4.59 The SEA Directive27 requires us to consider the possible impact any new plans andprogrammes would have on the environment.

4.60 We also want to ensure that the wider effects on communities and economic activity areconsidered at an early stage and throughout the planning process. The planning bodywould therefore carry out an economic, environmental and social appraisal and anassessment of sustainability during the preparation of the draft plan. This process wouldincorporate the requirements of the SEA and Public Participation29 Directives, AppropriateAssessment under the Habitats Directive25, and other requirements of European legislation,and would consider the practical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the plan.

4.61 Information gathered during this process could also inform future EIAs24 associated withnew licence applications, thereby helping to reduce the burden on applicants andminimising duplication of effort.

4.62 Assessment of sustainability would be integral to the process of preparing the plan, andwould help to shape the eventual proposals. The earliest stage would be to agreesustainability objectives for the planning area, which would themselves flow from theshared UK marine policy statement. These would then be used to assess the draft planand provide a framework against which progress towards implementation could bemeasured and monitored.

Drawing up draft plans

4.63 The planning body would be required to produce a draft plan giving effect to the sharedUK marine policy statement and having regard to relevant factors affecting the region towhich the plan applies.

4.64 During the drawing up of draft plans the planning body will liaise with relevantgovernment departments e.g. Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS),Department for Trade and Industry (DTI), Ministry of Defence (MoD), Communities andLocal Government (CLG), Department for Transport (DfT), and where necessary the otherUK administrations, to ensure that the developing plans accurately reflect their policies,priorities and objectives, as set out in the shared UK marine policy statement. Furthermore,to ensure that plans are made based on the best information available, and so make themost positive contribution to good and certain decision-making, the planning body wouldalso seek advice during the planning process from bodies and organisations with specificexpertise or marine related responsibilities. These could include:

• stakeholders who have detailed local knowledge of an area;

• scientific or industry advisors, e.g. CEFAS;

• the Crown Estate, as owner of most of the foreshore and the seabed out to 12nautical miles;

• environmental, cultural and heritage bodies, e.g. Natural England (NE) or EnglishHeritage (EH);

• the relevant devolved administration where there are likely to be cross borderimplications; and

• bodies with responsibilities that overlap with marine plans, e.g. Environment Agency(EA), local authorities, regional assemblies etc.

31


32

Figure 3: Outline planning process

possible publichearing on plan

Consideration of the draft plan

4.65 The plan would be published in draft, after which we intend that there would be a periodof time before the plan was finalised, during which the public could consider theproposals and raise any issues or concerns they may have with the planning body.

4.66 The planning body, or relevant ministers or departments would consider whether therewas a need for a formal public examination or hearing on the plan, or parts of it. Inmaking their decision, they would be required to have regard to the public response to theplan, the level of stakeholder involvement that there had already been in the preparation

planningbody defines

planning areas

planning body seeks adviceon scope of plan

planning body prepares plan

public consultation on draft plan

planning body revises plan (if required)

asse

ssm

ent

of s

usta

inab

ility

of

plan

incl

udin

g SE

A

plan adopted

planning bodykeeps relevant

issues under review

planning bodymonitors

implementation ofplan through

decision


and drafting of the plan, and any other matters they consider relevant. It may be thatsome elements of this process could be similar to the Examination in Public that takesplace within planning on land.

4.67 An independent expert or inspector could chair any public hearing. They would report ontheir findings to the relevant planning body, ministers or departments, who would thenconsider whether to amend the draft plan as a result of the report, or otherrepresentations received during the consultation process, on doing so publishing theirdecision on the rationale behind any changes.

Adoption and publication

4.68 Once the relevant ministers or departments were satisfied that the plan implemented thepolicy statement and that the planning process had adequately addressed other relevantconcerns, it is intended that they would adopt the plan as a final version. In this case therelevant ministers or departments would be:

• the sponsoring Secretary of State, and other UK Government departments;

• Welsh ministers;

• Scottish ministers; and

• the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland.

4.69 An adopted plan would then be published. We intend that plans should be published inan easy-to-use format, where appropriate presenting information graphically using mapsand charts. In particular, the plan should be accessible to anyone who may be affected bydecisions influenced by it. To ensure comparability between plans, we anticipate somestandardisation in how marine plans are presented.

Monitoring progress

4.70 During the lifetime of a plan, the planning body would keep under review matters thatmay affect the plan’s content or effectiveness, such environmental trends, changes tobiodiversity, effects of climate change etc., as well as to monitor how well the content ofthe plan has been taken forward through decision-making.

4.71 UKMMAS already brings together a substantial amount of data about our seas. Theplanning system would play a key role in the way in which UKMMAS is taken forward.UKMMAS would also feed information back to the UK Government and devolvedadministrations to enable management activities or objectives to be adapted in the light ofimproved information.

Review

4.72 The planning body would fully review the plan at least once in every 6-year period, toensure that it accurately reflects both the current situation and also the most accuratepredictions and objectives for the next 20 to 25 years. In particular, we anticipate that thequantity and quality of data available for planning would improve over each 6-yearplanning cycle and that the planning body would be able to improve the predictions and

33


assumptions on which the longer-term aspects of the plan are based. Plans may thereforeneed updating to take account of this additional information.

4.73 New developments or changes may mean that plans need to be revised before the formal6-year review period has elapsed, so we intend that plans should be reviewed at an earlierstage, if it appeared to be necessary or sensible.

4.74 Formal 6-yearly reviews would follow the same broad process, outlined above, ofconsultation, preparation, appraisal and adoption, as for the initial preparation of the plan.

Integration with other plans4.75 It is essential that our proposals integrate well with other plans and planning processes,

both statutory and non-statutory, and particularly in coastal areas where managementarrangements can be complex. There are a number of ways we will seek to achieve thisintegration.

4.76 The shared UK marine policy statement would bring together and reconcile differentpolicies, objectives and targets that currently exist, and could therefore incorporateobligations we currently have under, for example, the WFD. This would therefore promotethe achievement of those objectives alongside other marine policies.

4.77 We intend that, throughout the preparation of marine plans to implement the policystatement, careful consideration should be given to:

• any adjacent plans;

• any plans covering the whole or part of the same geographic area and

• any other plans with relevant content and subject matter.

4.78 The marine planning process would adopt an approach that would facilitate integrationacross planning boundaries, and harmonisation between plans with the same oroverlapping geographic coverage. This will be particularly crucial for activities andorganisations that operate across more than one planning area: we do not want plans toimpose new burdens on these. Working to ensure how plans can be integrated may revealareas of duplication between plans and, where that happens, we would explore ways thisduplication could be removed or addressed.

4.79 It should be noted that integration of, and harmonisation between, plans would not beachieved immediately. Different plans in coastal areas are reviewed in different time cyclesindependently of each other, but this staged approach will enable planners progressively toconsider the content of other plans, enabling gradual, more considered integration.

4.80 Where the content of a marine plan is relevant to land use planning, then it should beconsidered in development control decisions in the usual way. In such cases, it may also behelpful to consider the need for any consequent modification of statements of land useplanning policy.

34


4.81 Where plans in any part of UK waters adjoin the geographic area of one or more otheradministrations, or affect in any way the functions for which another administration isresponsible, the administrations will notify each other so that any possible implications canbe considered at an early stage, although this would not affect the competence of anyadministration to adopt their respective plans. Plans developed throughout UK waterswould be intended to link effectively with any plans developed in the UK territorial waterswithin Scotland, through separate legislation.

4.82 The SEA Directive requires us to consider whether our plans may have a ‘significant effect’on the environment of other EU Member States, and if so, requires us to consult them. Inany case we are keen to work cooperatively with other Member States, and in particularNorthern Ireland will consult the Republic of Ireland where a plan may have anyimplications for them. We are also keen to work closely with the Isle of Man on anythingthat might be of interest to them.

4.83 Integration between marine and land planning is extremely important and will requirecareful thought. We intend that the marine planning process should give carefulconsideration to the impacts of marine activities on the coast (e.g. pollution, seascape andvisual amenity, noise, extra marine or land traffic into ports, cables running intoconnecting stations on land) and also to terrestrial impacts on the marine environment.The science and data we use for planning could help us to establish these impacts. Wemust also consider the socio-economic links between what happens at sea and thecommunities that will be affected by changes to those activities.

Influencing decisions4.84 We want the shared UK marine policy statement and marine plans in specific areas to

have sufficient influence over decisions that are made in relation to the marineenvironment. This would ensure that the planning system can achieve significant benefits.Marine planning can only provide an effective framework for decision-making if it has astrong and direct link to decisions.

Our intention

4.85 We want all decisions made in the marine area, or that could have implications for themarine area, to be made in accordance with the shared UK marine policy statement andany relevant marine plan. When taking decisions, public bodies would have to review thecontent of the policy statement, in addition to the content of any relevant marine plan, toensure that their proposed course of action is in accordance with both.

4.86 Although we intend that bodies should act in accordance with the plan, a marine planwould not always be the only consideration, and at the time of taking a decision therewould be a number of other relevant considerations the decision-maker would need tobear in mind. For the planning system to be effective, we must ensure that the decision-maker can act in a flexible way and depart from the plan if relevant considerations indicatethat another course of action is most appropriate. In that event, the decision-maker wouldhave to have clear and convincing reasons for taking this course of action.

35


36

4.87 Relevant considerations could be:

• the results of any Appropriate Assessment or EIA undertaken as part of the decision-making process, which may reveal information that was not contained in plans;

• the marine environment is dynamic and changes, or new discoveries (e.g. oil & gas),may have taken place or have been made since plans were adopted;

• new, or changed statutory obligations;

• new government policies; or

• appropriate and effective ways to respond to emergency situations.

4.88 This is an approach that is already very familiar on land: the Town and Country PlanningAct 199041, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 200438, is anexample of this approach working in practice.

Decisions and bodies to which this would apply

4.89 The approach described above (4.85 – 4.88) would apply to all public bodies makingdecisions in the area covered by marine plans, because if some bodies were makingdecisions that significantly conflict with the plan, then this could adversely affect orundermine the activities of others. It would apply to all decisions that are made either inthe marine area, or that may have implications for the marine area. We will need toensure that this does not conflict with the detailed statutory functions of such publicbodies, but there is no reason in principle why it should.

4.90 The types of decisions that would be affected by the approach laid out above would be:

• licensing decisions about projects, developments and activities, for example thosedecisions currently made in accordance with the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA);

• enforcement decisions;

• decisions taken about the protection of resources, for example about whether todesignate an MCZ;

• by-law making; and

• creation or amendment of other plans (Shoreline Management Plans, Land Use Plans etc).

4.91 Decisions that would not be affected by this would include policy formulation anddevelopment by government departments. We would expect departments and thedevolved administrations to consider the content of the shared UK marine policystatement and any relevant plans carefully when making new policy decisions, or whenentering into international negotiations, however policy should be guiding the marineplanning process, rather than being restricted by it. We intend that the evidence gatheringand consideration involved in the marine planning process would inform good policy-making in the future.


Considering marine plans together with other obligations

4.92 In some parts of the marine area, and in particular in coastal waters, there will be otherplans. We want the marine planning system to work so that, wherever possible, thecontent of these plans is harmonised.

4.93 Having ensured as much harmonisation between plans as possible, decision-makers maystill be faced with one or more plans they must consider in addition to marine plans. Ingeneral, statutory plans would have greater influence than non-statutory plans, but therelevance of the scope and content of the plans is also a significant factor. We must alsoensure that we continue to comply with relevant European and international obligations.

Ensure compliance with this approach

4.94 We intend to monitor and review whether decisions are being made in accordance withthe policy statement and marine plans. This would ensure that the planning system wasconsistent and predictable. This would be part of the mechanism of monitoring andreviewing plans – to ensure that plans could be amended to take account of problemsthat may have arisen, or to prompt the early review of a plan.

Activities that are not regulated by public bodies

4.95 There are some marine activities that are not regulated by public bodies, and wouldtherefore not be affected by the process described above (for example, some small scalerecreational boating). Voluntary initiatives and management schemes are often used tomanage such activities, and marine planning would take note of these, and any local plans.

4.96 These activities tend to be unregulated because they cause negligible or no significantdamage to the wider marine environment, are well established, or give rise to limited andmanageable interference to other sea users. However, these activities may have an impacton local areas that are particularly sensitive from a biodiversity or heritage point of view.By-law making powers proposed for MCZs would help regulators to protect those sites.Where areas are designated for heritage purposes, under the Protection of Wrecks Act1973 for example, there is a requirement for sea users, such as divers, to obtain a consentto enter the area

4.97 If marine plans are likely to contain anything that might affect smaller scale, unregulatedactivities, then this would be discussed during the preparation of the plan andconsultation process. The plan itself would serve as notice that if some areas wereparticularly suitable for certain types of activities, then those areas could potentiallybecome unavailable for some other uses at some future date.

Delivering plans4.98 UK Government and the devolved administrations will either carry out aspects of the marine

planning process themselves or delegate responsibility for this activity to another body: it isfor each administration to decide what arrangements are most suitable for their owncircumstances. Our current thinking on how this will work in practice is explained below.

37


38

Marine Management Organisation

4.99 Although ministers in UK Government and the devolved administrations would haveultimate responsibility for marine planning, in some areas we believe the practical activityinvolved in the planning process is something that may be best delivered outside of centralGovernment. In waters for which the UK Government or Northern Ireland are theresponsible administrations, we intend that the planning function would be delegated to aMarine Management Organisation (MMO). This would not apply in areas where UKGovernment would be jointly planning with other administrations.

Preparing guidance to the MMO

4.100 Whilst legislation would enable a framework planning process, we want to create aflexible, evolutionary system, the detail of which will change and develop over time. Wetherefore intend to provide the MMO with a set of guidance, agreed by all relevantGovernment departments, that it should use to develop marine plans.

4.101 The detailed scope and content of supporting practice guidance would be a matter forcontinual development, but it could guide the MMO on:

• the content of the shared UK marine policy statement and how the objectives within itshould be implemented through marine plans;

• how to undertake a spatial assessment of an area, using appropriate evidence;

• identifying subject matter to be included in plans;

• known or generic conflicts between activities, and how they might be addressed;

• improving integration of priorities or sectoral interests;

• potential synergies that could be exploited when considering the location of activities;

• potential opportunities for regeneration of coastal communities that could beenhanced by the content of marine plans;

• different types of tools and techniques, such as zoning, sensitivity mapping, allocationof ‘preferred areas’;

• effective public participation processes; and

• standardising the presentation of information between plans for different areas.

Coastal areas of England: Steering Groups

4.102 In the coastal areas of England, UK Government is giving particular consideration to howthe MMO will take forward marine planning. It is in coastal areas or estuaries, thatplanning might be taken forward at a smaller scale, or in more detail. To ensure that theMMO is best placed to take forward planning effectively in coastal areas, we intend that itwould set up a small number of ‘marine planning steering groups’ – the precise number,location and nature of which requires further consideration.


39

4.103 Steering groups consisting of individuals or organisations with relevant responsibilities andinterests will be important in helping the MMO in coastal areas in particular because:

• marine plans would apply landward to MHWS and would overlap with the areacovered by land planning and local authority jurisdiction;

• there are a number of different plans in place in coastal areas e.g. River BasinManagement Plans (RBMP), Coastal Habitat Management Plans, ShorelineManagement Plans, and a number of other organisations therefore have planningresponsibilities in these areas;

• ensuring that marine planning is open and transparent, with an element of democraticaccountability, will be particularly important in coastal areas where marine activitiesand developments have a greater impact on local communities;

• it is sensible to ensure that marine planning makes the best use of local knowledgeand expertise;

• key projects and developments in coastal areas, such as ports and relatedinfrastructure and shipping traffic, will be an important consideration in both land andmarine plans, and will require joined up thinking between the two processes; and

• UK Government has committed to ICZM and is seeking ways to help coastalmanagement operate more effectively.

4.104 The most appropriate size and structure for the groups would need further consideration.There are a number of organisations and individuals who could be considered as possiblemembers of these steering groups, such as:

• local authorities and harbour or port authorities;

• The Crown Estate;

• Environment Agency;

• advisory bodies such as English Heritage (EH), Natural England (NE), Natural Trust, local tourist boards;

• industries;

• Non-Government Organisations (NGOs);

• local coastal groups, partnerships;

• UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO);

• Sea Fisheries Committees (SFC); and

• general or local lighthouse authorities.

4.105 The main role of the steering groups would be to advise the MMO and contribute towardsthe preparation of marine plans. The steering group members would apply their knowledgeand expertise of local issues, other planning systems or the way in which they affect localcommunities. The groups would contribute a balanced viewpoint and consider evidence,and help the MMO to resolve conflicts and obstacles identified in the planning process.


4.106 The steering groups would play a valuable role in facilitating public participation in themarine planning process, by utilising their experience of stakeholder engagement andcontacts within different communities and sectors. We intend that the MMO, togetherwith the steering groups advising it, would make use of existing stakeholder networksand sources of expertise as far as possible.

Northern Ireland

4.107 The Northern Ireland administration is considering the implementation of an approachsimilar to that proposed for England, at a scale appropriate to requirements in Northern Ireland.

Wales

4.108 Wales is currently considering how these functions may best be delivered, and the WelshAssembly Government has asked the Wales Coastal and Maritime Partnership (WCMP) foradvice on the practical aspects of marine planning. The Welsh Assembly Government willuse this advice to guide its decision-making in relation to the marine planning process inWales. ‘People, places, futures – The Wales Spatial Plan’ forms an integrated, 20 year planfor the land area of Wales that aims to ensure that all Welsh Assembly Governmentpolicies and programmes come together in a way that recognises local differences, whileworking to achieve the objectives for Wales as a whole.61 It is important that any systemof marine planning in Wales can integrate with the Wales Spatial Plan. In providing adviceto the Welsh Assembly Government, WCMP will be looking at the process that was usedto develop the Wales Spatial Plan and the lessons that can be learned from it. It would bepossible for Welsh ministers to ask the MMO to be involved in marine planning in Wales,should they decide this is appropriate.

Scotland

4.109 In Scotland, where any marine plans would be taken forward through separate legislation,Scottish ministers are considering with AGMACS what the potential delivery optionsmight be for any future marine planning.

Offshore area adjacent to Scotland

4.110 Further consideration is being given to how best to implement the joint planningarrangements in the offshore area adjacent to Scotland.

40


41

Our Aim

The changes that we propose to make to the marine licensing system are intended to result in better, more consistent licensing decisions delivered more quickly and at less cost to all by asystem that is proportionate and easier to understand and to use. They will integrate deliveryacross a range of sectors and, through the creation of a marine management organisation and the functions it will perform, be a vital link in the chain from planning to enforcement.

Summary of our proposals5.1 This section sets out how we will:

• create a reformed marine licensing regime based on the consolidation of Part 2 of theFood and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA) and Part 2 of the Coast ProtectionAct 1949 (CPA);

• include all forms of dredging, including marine minerals dredging and currentlyunregulated forms of dredging, within the reformed regime;

• enable ministers to introduce new rules to regulate Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS),if appropriate;

• streamline licensing of offshore renewable energy installations;

• reduce overlaps in legislation applying to harbours and ports;

• repeal some redundant provisions relating to laying cables;

• give powers to the new Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to deliver thereformed licensing regime, regulation of harbour developments, offshore renewablesup to a certain size and aspects of the regulation of CCS in England and NorthernIreland;

• enable ministers to establish timescales for processes set up by the reformed licensingregime;

• enable ministers to exempt activities from the need for licensing, either fully or partially,where they pose no significant risk to the marine environment, heritage or otherlegitimate users of the seas, to ensure proportionate regulation; and

• enable ministers to issue licences for extended programmes of linked activities, to savedevelopers having to make multiple applications.

Introduction5.2 Our marine licensingc system is the mechanism which translates the objectives of marine

plans into decisions to allow individual activities (subject to specific conditions) or barthem. Licensing therefore articulates how in practice the Government’s policies aredelivered. It also provides a vital hook on which to hang monitoring and enforcement.

5. Licensing Activities in the Marine Area

c In this section, “licensing” is used to mean permission being given by Government or another authority. Its sense includes“consenting”, “formally allowing”, “permitting” etc.

5.3 The current systems have built up over many years. The increasing variety and volume ofactivities that take place at sea mean that modernisation of the licensing framework isnow needed. Our stakeholders throughout the UK share this view.

5.4 We intend to deliver a modernised system that is streamlined, flexible, consistent andpromotes integrated decision-making. It will be delivered in part through a combination ofchanges to the law to embed the principles of better regulation: accountability,consistency, targeting, proportionality and transparency. This means matching the costs oflicensing, monitoring and enforcement to the risk that an activity poses to theenvironment or other legitimate uses of the sea. These changes will be complemented bythe creation of a new organisation – an MMO – that will be charged with supporting andimplementing the new licensing provisions for many projects. Together they will help theGovernment to fulfil its ambition to implement sustainable development in the UK’s seas.

Geographic scope

5.5 We are committed to ensuring, wherever possible, that the essential provisions of theMarine Bill with respect to marine licensing, its principles and its processes, will be thesame throughout the UK. Ministers in devolved administrations are considering how toimplement and deliver such consistency for devolved licensing functions.

5.6 It is important to recognise, of course, that policy and legal responsibilities forenvironmental protection in relation to the sea have been devolved since 1999. Particularlyin the case of marine licensing, the scope of those responsibilities and the ways in whichthey have been devolved are different for each devolved administration. Where mattershave been devolved, responsibility for deciding on the scope and nature of reform has alsobeen devolved.

5.7 Our guiding principle is that proposals for licensing reform will respect devolutionarrangements. The core of the licensing part of the Bill will be similar or, if possible,identical across the UK. However, proposals relating to some matters, in particular to howlicensing is delivered, will necessarily continue to vary to some extent between England,Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

The need to reform marine licensing

5.8 Many improvements to existing regimes have been made despite the limitations of thecurrent law. For example, applications made for licences under FEPA are advertised andinterested parties are consulted despite the lack of any domestic legal requirement to doso. The forthcoming formal implementation of some European environmental rulesd willalso update existing law. However, current systems have now been stretched to their limit– they are outdated and in need of revision. They no longer provide regulators with thetools to manage activities effectively, and they fail to provide transparency, efficiency ofdecision-making, and clarity of requirements.

42


d The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, as amended by the Public Participation Directive, is being transposed to applyto FEPA and the CPA. These changes are expected to come into force in summer 2007.

43

5.9 From the feedback from the 2006 consultation, we received strong messages fromrespondents across the UK about better regulation, integration, and increased customerfocus. We believe this supports the inclusion of marine licensing as part of a holistic marinemanagement system that starts with marine planning and ends with consistentenforcement. This system will also deliver our objectives for protecting vital natural habitatsand modernising our inshore fisheries, as described in sections 6 and 7, respectively.

A holistic approach

5.10 Delivering sustainable development is of paramount importance in the approach we aretaking to reforming the licensing system. We want to enable regulators to consider thewider benefits of a development alongside its potential impacts. Doing so would be amajor enhancement of our ability to deliver the holistic management of the seas that isour ultimate objective and the philosophy underlying marine planning.

Regulating better

5.11 We want to obtain benefits by making the licensing system effective, efficient, and assimple and clear to use as possible, while keeping the burdens imposed to the minimumnecessary. We want to regulate only where necessary.

5.12 We intend to introduce legislation that is:

• effective – targeted on things that need to be controlled: for environmental reasons, toensure that a proper balance is struck between competing uses, and to use finitemarine resources sustainably;

• efficient – in both the speed of its processes and use of resources;

• consistent – between regimes, over time and across the UK;

• simple, clear and transparent – so that stakeholders know what is required, what toexpect of the process, and are able to understand how and why decisions are made; and

• flexible, targeted, proportionate and risk-based – enabling regulators to deal with allsituations appropriately, striking the right balance between the need to regulate andour desire to promote entrepreneurship.

Customer focus

5.13 We regulate activities to protect the environment and the interests of other users of thesea. Licensing allows safeguards to be required before activities can take place. Werecognise that the current regulations are complex, overlap and are difficult to understand.On occasions they take longer to administer than they should. This is a hindrance to bothregulators and licence applicants, particularly where activities span the land-sea boundary.It limits the UK’s ability to generate the social, economic and environmental benefits ofsustainable development. We want to ensure that our reforms offer improved customerservice and a user-friendly process.

Integration at the coast

5.14 Integration of the various terrestrial and marine licensing regimes at the coast is an areawhere improvements could have a significant impact. The higher density of activities in these


44

areas leads to more tension between sectors and more difficulty in achieving sustainabledevelopment. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) has been highlighted in recentyears as a solution to such problems. Marine planning will address many of these issues, butsuccessful coastal management also depends upon effective communication betweenlicensing authorities on land and at sea. Where activities cross the land-sea interface, we willprovide greater clarity on the relative responsibilities of the MMO and other regulatorybodies. We shall also identify and promote current best practice in the licensing system andencourage dialogue between developers and stakeholders through local advice groups. Bydoing so, we expect to further advance integrated management of our coastal zones.

5.15 The Environmental Permitting Programme (EPP), a joint initiative of Defra, the EnvironmentAgency (EA) and the Welsh Assembly Government, will streamline terrestrial waste andpollution controls. The principle guiding us is that there should be no duplication betweenEPP and marine licensing controls.

Case Study: the River Hamble Streamlined Consents Group

An example of best practice in the licensing process at a local level is an informal StreamlinedConsents Group (SCG) in the area of the River Hamble Harbour Authority. The aim of the SCG is to help guide people through the current marine licensing process and provide theopportunity for developers with proposals for development on the River Hamble to discussthem with regulatory and advisory bodies before they make an application (ongoingapplications cannot be discussed). This has been very well received and successful in puttinginto practice the principles of both local engagement and integrated coastal zone andestuarine management.

The Streamlined Consents panel includes representatives from all the relevant licensingauthorities – both local and from central government – and some of the advisory bodiesconsulted during the decision-making processes.

Benefits of the SCG include:

• improved communication between regulators and increased awareness of the forthcoming applications in the River Hamble;

• the opportunity for regulators to openly discuss issues relating to different consents;

• a clearer idea for applicants of which consents will be needed, and potential problems inthe application process;

• advice on Appropriate Assessments and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs); and

• helping avoid time delays and cost increases.

Enforcement

5.16 For our proposals to have the maximum effect, we need to provide regulators with toolsto monitor and ensure compliance. These should enable the authorities to carry out theirduties in a targeted, proportionate and risk-based way. These tools are described in 5.62 – 5.72.


45

One project:one licence

5.17 For as many sectors as possible, we would like there to be one application per project,submitted to one authority, which will deliver one decision and issue one licence: in short,one project:one licence. As an indication of the effect of our proposals on the number oflicences required for certain projects, see Table 2.

5.18 As well as providing simplicity of concept and process, this approach will facilitate theachievement of sustainable development. Where two or more licences are needed for aproject and issued under different legislation, there is a tension that can obstruct progresstowards sustainable development objectives.

5.19 An example is that both a FEPA licence and consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act1989 are needed before a marine wind farm can be built. Each system has a differentpurpose and the factors that can be taken into account are limited by those purposes. ForFEPA, the factors considered are broadly those relating to the protection of the marineenvironment, whilst the wider benefits that generating renewable energy bring are notgenerally relevant. Decisions under the Electricity Act 1989 are confined to matters relatingto electricity infrastructure and supply, except where European rules now say otherwise.Decisions do not balance the benefits of a project with its drawbacks.

5.20 Unifying these two licences would not only simplify the application system for thedeveloper, it would also enable the licensing authority to consider all the relevant factorsconcurrently and arrive at a balanced decision. We want to ask, “On balance, do thebenefits (social, environmental and economic) of this project outweigh the costs?” Thatwould be a powerful tool in our ambition to introduce a holistic management system thatdelivers sustainable development to our seas.

Delivering our vision

5.21 We intend to deliver our vision through a three-pronged approach:

• we will make legislative changes to streamline and simplify the marine licensing process(see 5.23 – 5.27 and 5.45 – 5.61);

• in England and Northern Ireland, we will complement that by setting up an MMO,which will administer licensing and provide integration and consistency betweenlicensing regimes (see 5.118 – 5.131). Scottish and Welsh ministers are consideringoptions for administering those functions that are devolved to them. In Scotland, thereis already a single portal for licence applications.

• we will increase the use of guidance and other non-legislative advice, and extend therange of powers available to enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with thelegislation without having to resort to prosecution.

5.22 We will retain elements of the current regimes where they do not need to change, but wewill make some significant changes to the way that licensing regimes work.


Creating a modern, streamlined and simplified marine licensing regime5.23 The heart of the licensing system controlling activities in tidal waters and in ports and

harbours will be a reformed regime based on a consolidation of Part 2 of FEPA and Part 2of the CPA, which will also cover all dredging. This reformed regime will be flexible,targeted and proportionate so that only those activities that pose a significant risk to theenvironment, marine heritage or other legitimate uses of the sea are subject to regulation.The decision-making process will be made fairer and more efficient. This regime will sitalongside others for offshore renewable energy installations, harbours legislation and oiland gas, as outlined in later sub-sections. Many of these licensing functions will bedelivered in an integrated manner by the new MMO.

Consolidating general marine licensing controls

5.24 When they were enacted, Part 2 of FEPA and Part 2 of the CPAe had very differentpurposes. FEPA was intended to control dumping and incineration at sea, and constructionon the seabed, to protect the marine environment, human health and other legitimateuses of the sea. The CPA was designed to ensure a safe environment for navigationfollowing similar activities.

5.25 Successive changes, particularly those derived from European environmental law, havesince blurred the distinction. For example, EU law now requires EIAs and imposesconservation requirements under both Acts and there is now a significant overlap betweenthe two regimes. Where an activity falls in the area of overlap, in effect two permissionsare needed for the same purpose. This overlap leads to costly complexity and lack ofclarity. Reducing the regulatory burden by consolidation of legislation is in line with therecommendations of the Davidson Review.4

5.26 We intend to merge the relevant parts of FEPA and the CPA into one modernised system.Only one licence will be needed where currently there is often a need for two, so therewill be no doubt about which licence to apply for nor about the relative scope of differentpermissions. For example, in 2005, there were 156 applications for CPA consent inconjunction with a FEPA licence. For projects only subject to the FEPA and CPA regimes,this will deliver our one project:one licence objective.

5.27 The reformed marine licensing regime will regulate broadly the same activities in much thesame way as FEPA and the CPA do now. Activities currently licensable will generally remainso. Developers will be required to apply for a licence to carry out activities involvingconstruction, alteration or improvement of works, the deposit or disposal of substances onor under the seabed, or removal of objects and material from the seabed. This licensingregime will also incorporate all forms of dredging, including those licensed by Defra andCommunities and Local Government (CLG), and those currently unregulated.

46

e The CPA applies only in relation to the marine area in or adjacent to England, Scotland and Wales.


47

Incorporation of dredging

5.28 Dredging is carried out in many locations and at vastly differing scales. Each year theaggregate dredging industry extracts millions of tonnes of sand and gravel, from the seabedaround the UK, for use in construction and beach replenishment. The building of newports, or the upgrading of existing ones, often requires considerable deepening of shippingchannels to allow large cargo vessels to use new facilities. There are also many small portsand marinas around the coast where regular, small-scale dredging is needed to remove siltdeposited by rivers and the sea. This may be carried out by traditional methods such ascutter suction dredging, but may also involve currently non-licensable forms. These includehydrodynamic dredging, such as water injection and agitation dredging,f and ploughdredging.g The impact of these operations on the environment, navigation and other usesof the seas varies considerably. But clearly all aspects of dredging, both excavation anddisturbance of the seabed and the deposit of dredged material can have an impact on theenvironment. Major projects can destroy plants and animals and make major changes tothe character of the seabed, and even minor works are not without an impact.

5.29 The effect of licensable forms of dredging as part of a large project is always carefullyassessed alongside the other parts of the project licensing process. Environmental impactsare taken into account (including, where appropriate, in fulfilment of Europeanobligations), as are the impacts on, for example, shellfisheries, other fisheries andrecreational uses. The effects of developments can also be considered in the context ofother works in the same area, to ensure that the combined impact of projects is keptwithin acceptable limits.

5.30 Ongoing, small scale dredging often has a marginal or negligible impact on theenvironment. Nevertheless, even small scale dredging can have a significant adverseimpact where, for example, it disturbs sediments contaminated with tributyl tin (TBT)antifouling or historic industrial or other pollution that may drift onto shellfish beds orparticularly sensitive ecosystems.

5.31 Whilst large construction projects are currently regulated under FEPA and the CPA, andaggregate dredging under the Government View procedure (GV)h and the CPA, variousdredging techniques, such as hydrodynamic and plough dredging, fall outside of the scopeof current rules.

5.32 We intend to establish a comprehensive system to regulate all forms of dredging. We willregulate the excavation of material from the seabed or its disturbance or movement acrossthe seabed. The new system will be flexible and will not apply controls where there is nogood reason for doing so. Our proposals for proportionate, modernised regulation are setout in 5.45 – 5.61 below, and will apply to dredging as elsewhere.

f Hydrodynamic dredging involves relocation of sediment as a result of ambient water movements and/or gravity. The sedimentis not physically removed and deposited elsewhere. Although often small in scale, this is not always the case. Such techniquesinclude water injection and agitation dredging Water injection dredging involves injection of water into the seabed to suspendthe sediment in the water column; agitation dredging uses physical contact to disturb the sediment.

g In plough dredging, a plough is dragged through the sediment on the seabed, which is therefore pushed out of a shippingchannel, in much the same way a snowplough clears a road.

h Shortly to be replaced by Regulations – The Environmental Impact Assessment and Natural Habitats (Extraction of Minerals byMarine Dredging) (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2007 – being prepared by the CLG, and equivalent Welsh andScottish provisions.


5.33 The flexibility in the licensing system will have to take into account the significantdifferences in the physical, geochemical, ecological and anthropogenic influences on theseas around the UK. For example, the waters around the South-East coast of England aregenerally shallow and rich in sediment, while in the South-West the coast is exposed androcky. As a result, they support different ecosystems, and a given activity may have widelydiffering impacts. We believe our proposals will allow for such differences to be properlyreflected in licensing decisions.

Making fair and well-informed decisions

5.34 It is in the decision-making process that we think the most important improvements willbe made.

5.35 Licensing decisions will have to be made in the context of marine plans. Plans will beprepared through a public, participative process and address matters that inform marinelicensing policy. They will also set out publicly the main considerations against whichlicence applications will be measured. This transparency will provide a more certain basisfor commercial decision-making.

5.36 Establishing the MMO will improve consistency through bringing together in one bodyfunctions which are currently spread between different organisations. See 5.118 – 5.123 forfurther information on the benefits we expect to achieve through the MMO.

5.37 Our proposals on the MMO and on marine planning therefore make an importantcontribution to improving licensing decision-making generally.

5.38 Beyond these important general developments, we think two more specific changes wouldalso help improve marine licensing. We expect that some decisions will attract a high levelof interest. There may be cases where it would be appropriate for the consideration of theapplication, and the ensuing decision, to be made in public, and ministers may wish toensure that happens. In such cases, ministers should be able to require a public hearing tobe held before a final decision is made. This is not generally the approach taken now –FEPA does not provide for holding public hearings before licensing decisions are made. We propose to make it clear in advance when these sorts of powers might be exercised,i.e. what constitutes appropriate circumstances.

5.39 Many of the issues that cause concern for stakeholders occur where a project crosses theland-sea boundary. The current systems do not readily promote integrated consideration ofthe separate elements of project proposals and this tends to impose extra burdens ondevelopers. One of the heaviest burdens, for all concerned, is the conduct of a publichearing or inquiry. Some developments are subject to more than one public inquirybecause they are licensed under different pieces of legislation. We believe that a singlepublic inquiry should be able to consider all matters relevant to a project and intend toenable that to happen.

5.40 We are also committed to open, transparent and consistent decision-making. If peopleunderstand what a system is trying to achieve, how it works, and how and why decisionsare made, we believe that their confidence in it will be high. Consistency, in particular,helps developers to predict likely outcomes and constraints in marine developmentprojects, and thereby aids business planning and reduces risks.

48


5.41 To further our objectives on transparency, we intend to require licensing bodies to publiciseapplications, and make details available to anyone who wishes to see them. These datashould be accessible electronically, though that is probably not sufficient on its own. Theremay have to be some exceptions, but only for good reason (e.g. where there are nationalsecurity interests).

5.42 We also think that the licensing authorities should be required to consult bodies with aparticular interest in an application. These might include conservation agencies, harbour ornavigation authorities, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), or the Environment or FoodStandards Agencies. Where licensing functions are not held by ministers, the appropriateministers will be able to intervene in the process to safeguard interests of nationalimportance.

5.43 In addition to simplifying and clarifying the law itself, we will enable the relevant authorityto regulate more clearly the procedure for obtaining a licence. This could include settingout detailed rules in secondary legislation and related guidance. As now, such rules couldinclude provisions on what an applicant would be expected to have done before makingan application, what additional information was required in support of an application(including an environmental statement when appropriate), allow for recovering the costsof administration, monitoring and enforcement, and require information in electronicformat and to a prescribed standard.

5.44 There will of course be flexibility to allow for unpredictable events and discussion betweenthe applicant and the authorities. We would certainly expect the system to be operated ina sensitive and proportionate way. As a result, we expect the introduction of a definedprocess to provide a greater degree of certainty for applicants for licences, and greatertransparency for all stakeholders.

Making timely decisions

5.45 The time it takes to obtain a FEPA or CPA licence has often been criticised. We understandthat delays in the decision-making process can cause commercial or environmental timewindows to be missed, potentially resulting in financial losses to a developer. Lengthyapplications can increase the burden on consultees and advisors. Uncertainty about thetime it takes to obtain a licence hampers effective planning and has a negative impact onbusinesses. It is important that our reforms foster a positive business environment, as wellas protecting environmental and other interests in relation to the sea.

5.46 We therefore intend the rules relating to the application and decision-making process toestablish timescales for various stages of the process (with some flexibility wherecircumstances merit it).

5.47 Establishing the MMO (see 5.118 – 5.131, and section 8), with its customer serviceobjectives and associated service standards, and the gathering within it of Government’srelevant expertise, will drive the authorities to work within the new timescales. For theapplicant’s part, there is usually a commercial incentive to keep to the timetable. We are,in addition, looking at how to address the practice among some developers of submittingspeculative applications, with little or none of the required evidence, either to use theauthorities in a free consultancy capacity or to lay claim to the rights to carry outdevelopment in an area and so block competitors. Setting binding timetables mightprovide one way to do this.

49


50

Proportionate and targeted regulation

5.48 We intend to regulate only where there is a justifiable need to do so, and then to ensurethat requirements of the law are the minimum to do the job effectively. Ensuring that theburdens that we impose are proportionate to the risk associated with activities isfundamental to the health of our economy and our democratic processes.

Provisions to lighten or remove the regulatory burden

5.49 Many activities in the marine area do not need a licence now: some because they havenever been licensable (e.g. deposits made other than from vehicles); others because theyhave been expressly exempted (e.g. deposits in the course of fishing). We do not generallywant to change this but we want to allow further exemptions and reduce the regulatoryburden in other ways where appropriate.

5.50 We plan to achieve this through use of more flexible powers to exempt activities fromlicensing, power to grant general permissions (for specific classes of activity), phased orprogrammed licensing of complex or long term projects, and power to draw more localregulators into decision-making.

Exemptions

5.51 We think that some activities in certain areas are so insignificant that they should not beregulated at all. These might include minor construction projects by private individuals orharbour authorities, for example repair or maintenance of private moorings or someharbour facilities, or the regular redistribution of sand on beaches. We intend to be able todisapply the new system altogether where it is not needed by exempting activities. While asimilar power already exists in FEPA, for consistency we intend to extend it to activities thatcurrently fall under CPA provisions and to allow it to cater for a wider range of situationsthan is possible now.

5.52 To ensure that exemptions are targeted, risk-based and proportionate, we need todescribe accurately what is exempted, and when. Some exemptions might need to beconditional (e.g. restricted to certain times of the year or areas of the sea) or include aregistration or notification obligation so that regulators can maintain a complete picture ofactivities. In some cases, we may need to revoke an exemption.

5.53 Consistency with other systems and familiarity for stakeholders are important factors here.In bringing in reformed exemption powers, we will be looking at what we can learn fromexisting legislation, for example on water40 and the land planning system39.

5.54 Other activities, such as tourism and recreation, will not generally be licensed at all underthe new regime. However, there is the potential for them to cause damage. Therefore weintend to give the MMO the power to make local by-laws to regulate these activities ifthere is shown to be a need (see 6.132 – 6.140 for further detail).


Lighter touch licensing

5.55 We will ensure the new system is flexible enough to allow us to apply a light touch wherethat is proportionate to the risks an activity presents. Small scale and low impact activity, andmanaged activity under the control of responsible operators could fall into this category.

5.56 We propose to make provision for the licensing authority to grant a general permission orprovide for general rules for specific types or classes of activity. A developer would notneed a licence under the reformed marine licensing regime to be able to undertakeactivities provided they were carried out within the terms of the general permission.Other legislation, however, would continue to apply where appropriate, for example theHabitats Regulations.

5.57 A key feature of this is that by requiring the developer to make a judgement aboutwhether an activity came within the scope of the general permission, it would transfermore responsibility to the developer than an exemption. A general permission might alsoimpose other conditions, thresholds or reporting requirements. It might also entitle (but not require) regulators to inspect such projects to maintain the possibility of activescrutiny and enforcement. If an inspection revealed significant concerns, the authoritycould then be empowered to require a specific licence for the project or take otherenforcement action.

5.58 We expect this proposal to have the greatest beneficial effect for small businesses, wherethe costs and delays associated with preparing and considering an application can beprohibitive. We also intend it to enable regulators to take local conditions, including localenvironmental impacts, into account in deciding the scope of a general permission.It would enable lighter regulation to be applied in some cases, but ensure that unforeseenimpacts, new information, or more than merely local effects could prompt licensing in the usual way.

Phased activities

5.59 Some marine activities (e.g. navigational dredging) are carried out periodically in the sameplace or by certain statutory authorities (e.g. harbour authorities) in their own area. Othersmay take place regularly over an extended period, perhaps also within a defined area (e.g.mineral extraction or depositing at sea). These examples relate to a series of activities in anidentifiable area, at specified times, and often in phases.

5.60 We propose that where a single applicant wants to carry out a series of related activities ina defined area then, subject to appropriate safeguards, it should be possible for a singlelicence to permit this. This will provide greater commercial certainty, reduce the burden oflicensing and still deliver appropriate environmental protection.

5.61 Developers would need to make an initial assessment of the expected environmentalconditions and impacts over the course of the project and in some cases, it could benecessary to revisit that assessment during the works. We also need to ensure thatregulators could intervene during the course of long-term permissions if circumstanceschanged and remove such licences if they were not used or if evidence of adverse effects emerged.

51


Enforcing licensing

5.62 To be fully effective, a licensing system must be backed up by an enforcement regime.The same principles of proportionality, targeting and flexibility that apply to licensingshould also be guiding principles here. Current controls have some flexibility built in, butdo not properly fulfil these objectives. For example, there are powers for a licensingauthority to vary or modify licences to suit evolving circumstances, but it is not clear thatlicence holders themselves can seek variations. Nor is it clear when a licensing authoritycan exercise these powers.

5.63 The sanctions available to enforcement authorities are similarly inflexible. While a licencecan be revoked under the current regime, we do not have the scope to suspend it, orprovision to set out what a licence holder must do to fix a problem. The powers we havein FEPA and the CPA to require remediation are also limited, because they cannotanticipate future damage or be used in cases of real urgency.

5.64 We will remedy these defects. We intend to broaden the range and flexibility ofenforcement tools to enable regulators to intervene in the most appropriate way andultimately to ensure we deliver our sustainable development objectives.

Administrative sanctions

5.65 The purpose of enforcement is to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.However, revoking a person’s licence (and therefore perhaps removing their livelihood), orprosecuting somebody, are onerous enforcement actions. In many cases, they would betoo heavy-handed. We therefore want to make greater use of a wider range ofadministrative sanctions so that we can ensure compliance in most cases without havingto resort to the courts.

5.66 Formal and informal advice and guidance, while normally part of ongoing discussionsbetween regulators and developers, are the first enforcement mechanism. Where, forexample, licence conditions are breached through carelessness or ignorance, advice maybe all that is required to ensure compliance in the future.

5.67 Issuing a formal notice enables a regulator to give a clear, specific set of requirements oractions to address areas of failure and so ensure compliance with licence conditions. Anotice could also specify a deadline for compliance, or otherwise manage the processmore closely than envisaged in the original licence. Failure to comply with the terms of anotice should normally lead to escalation of enforcement action.

5.68 In some cases, an improvement notice might be appropriate as an alternative to othercriminal or civil penalties. For example, where a licence condition is precautionary ortechnical and breach does not, or would not, cause unacceptable environmental or otherharm, this route may be preferable to prosecution.

5.69 Where serious environmental or other relevant harm has or could arise from marineactivities, then we propose that regulators should be able to serve a stop or preventionnotice. Such a notice would require immediate action, and could also require steps to betaken to avert an identified threat. These notices could apply to all categories of activities,including unlicensed (or exempted) activities, projects operating under a general licence,

52


and projects operating under a specific licence, whether in accordance with its conditionsor not. This sort of action would be an emergency measure only. It would need to beexercised in combination with appropriate arrangements for dealing with the immediateand any longer term consequences of its use.

5.70 The tools that we have proposed so far are intended to ensure compliance withregulations and licence conditions. In addition, the CPA and FEPA have some powers torequire remedial action to repair damage done. We will retain these powers, butmodernise them. We think that, where unacceptable environmental harm has arisen frombreach of regulatory requirements, regulators should issue a notice to require remedialaction to be taken, or to take it themselves. As now, this should not be dependent first ona criminal conviction. We think that in many cases such notices promise to be a moreeffective means of protecting the environment and other users’ interests, and of securingregulatory compliance, than criminal prosecution. They might include liability for initialclean-up costs, monitoring and formal restoration of the environment to its pre-damagedcondition, or creation of replacement habitat if the original has been damaged beyondrepair. In accordance with the polluter pays principle, if the licensing authority deems itnecessary to undertake remedial work itself, it should be able to recover its full costs fromthose who caused the damage.

Amending or revoking a licence

5.71 The highly dynamic nature of the marine environment and the activities that take place init, and our ever-increasing understanding of the marine ecosystem and human impacts onit, mean that a licence is trying to hit a moving target. There may therefore be cases whenthe original terms of a licence become insufficient for it to manage adequately the risksassociated with an activity. For example, new scientific information might be publishedthat requires the reassessment of the risks of an activity. There may also be a need totighten the regulatory effect of a licence (for example by requiring additional reporting)following breach of its conditions. Exceptionally, we may also need to revoke a licencealtogether.

5.72 We therefore propose to continue the approach of FEPA and the CPA and provide for thetightening or relaxing of licence conditions, or in exceptional circumstances, revocation.

Changing the scope of marine licensing

5.73 We want to change the scope of what is licensed, or which legislation an activity isregulated by. In addition to the reformed regime covering activities currently licensed byPart 2 of FEPA and Part 2 of the CPA and marine dredging, our proposals cover:

• CCS;

• offshore renewable projects;

• harbours legislation;

• activities carried out under the Transport and Works Act 1992; and

• minor change for some cable-laying operations.

We now set out our proposals for these activities, starting with CCS.

53


Carbon Capture and Storage5.74 Emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activities are the major contributor to

climate change and ocean acidification, the greatest long term environmental challengesfacing the world today. The UK Government is committed to reducing UK CO2 emissionsby 20% by 2010 and by 60% by 2050, compared with 1990 levels. These are challenginggoals, and CCS is an important component in a portfolio of mitigation measures to helpachieve them.

5.75 CCS comprises the capture of CO2 generated on land by industrial processes, its transportand injection into geological formations. In the UK, most storage sites will be offshore, informations typically 1000m below the seabed. These include saline aquifers and depletedoil and gas fields. After injection, stored CO2 is prevented from escaping into the marineenvironment by sealing the injection sites, and by the overlying cap rock and poretrapping. Over time the CO2 will also dissolve into water trapped within the formation andmay later solidify through mineralisation as secondary and tertiary trapping mechanisms.

5.76 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that globally CCS couldprovide 15 to 55% of the emissions reductions needed to stabilise CO2 in the atmosphere.Others have estimated that potential storage sites in the UK sector of the North Sea arelarge, about 20,000 million to 260,000 million tonnes of CO2. This would representapproximately 40 to 500 times the total UK emissions in 2005.

5.77 Recently, the Stern review reported that extensive use of CCS worldwide would allowcontinued use of fossil fuels without damage to the atmosphere.55 It could also help guardagainst the danger of strong climate change policies being undermined by any falls infossil fuel prices. By enabling and investing in CCS now, the UK can also show leadershipto rapidly growing economies, such as China and India: CCS offers the only realisticprospect of mitigating the effect of CO2 emissions from the increasing use of fossil fuelsthat supports the economic growth of these countries.

5.78 A number of CCS projects in the North Sea are now being developed by industry. Theseprojects require both national and international regulatory certainty to go forward. The UKGovernment therefore supports measures to create an appropriate international regimeand will ensure that a domestic regulatory framework is put in place to enable suchprojects to take place.

International context

5.79 There has been uncertainty about whether two major international regimes permit sub-seabed CO2 storage. These are the 1996 Protocol to the 1972 London Convention and the1992 OSPAR Convention.45,50 Certain activities resulting in sub-seabed storage of CO2 arecurrently allowed under these agreements (e.g. the use of CO2 in enhanced oil recovery),and recent developments have now done much to clarify issues.

5.80 On 2 November 2006, the contracting parties to the London Convention and its Protocolvoted to amend the Protocol to clearly allow the storage of CO2 streams in sub-seabedgeological formations. This amendment came into force on 10 February 2007.

54


5.81 The applicability of the OSPAR Convention’s provisions are more complex. They dependprimarily on the route taken to the storage formation by the CO2 stream. Some routes arealready permissible, though subject to strict controls; others may not be. However, there isa broad consensus amongst contracting parties that the OSPAR Convention needs to beamended to remove the uncertainties, and the UK Government is a co-sponsor of theamendment proposals to achieve this. The annual meeting of the OSPAR Commission inJune 2007 will decide whether to accept the proposed amendments. Any amendment willthen need to be ratified by seven contracting parties.

5.82 We anticipate, therefore, that by the middle of 2007 significant moves to addressinternational legal barriers to using CCS will have been made. The UK should then be able todevelop and implement a national regulatory infrastructure to encourage and regulate CCS.

UK developments

5.83 In parallel, a UK Government CCS Regulatory Task Force has been working to identify theprocesses involved in carrying out CCS, how the complex existing laws apply, and todevelop options to complete the regulatory picture. Appropriate regulation would at leastneed to provide the legal framework for:

• capture of substantial quantities of CO2 derived from anthropogenic activities;

• exploration;

• site development and operation;

• permanent storage of CO2 injected into the seabed;

• full assessment, based on risk, of the potential impacts on the marine environment;

• establishment of appropriate measures to monitor and control deposits during andafter injection, and after site closure;

• site closure and decommissioning; and

• liability.

5.84 In addition, because of its role in climate change mitigation, a domestic CCS licensingregime would also need to be compatible with the IPCC guidelines for nationalgreenhouse gas inventories and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

5.85 We want to ensure that once the UK Government CCS Regulatory Task Force’s work iscomplete, any new regulation that is needed can be put in place. We are exploringoptions for doing that.

5.86 One option is to modify or add to existing or proposed future legislation to make it bettersuited to CCS. For offshore storage of CO2, this could be achieved by amending FEPA or thePollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and/or the Petroleum Act 1998 (which weexpect would already regulate enhanced oil and gas recovery using CO2 and which may beused to regulate decommissioning of oil and gas installations that have been used for CCS).A few further amendments (or additions to the provisions of the reformed marine licensingregime) might be all that is needed. This might therefore represent a straightforward way ofachieving our goals, in line with the principle of only regulating if necessary.

55


5.87 Another option is to provide in the Marine Bill for secondary legislation to regulate CCS inthe marine environment. This would enable us to modify the way the reformed marinelicensing regime will apply to CCS, or disapply it altogether and replace it with a bespokeregime, providing targeted and proportionate regulation.

5.88 The approach we eventually follow will depend on the emerging knowledge of thedistinctive features of CCS, any European proposals to regulate CCS, and the continuingwork of the UK Government CCS Regulatory Task Force. That in turn will affect whodelivers the new regime. For example, if treated as a waste disposal process, CCS wouldbe regulated in Scotland by the Scottish Executive.

5.89 Regulation of offshore CO2 injection and storage, apart from activities covered by existingprovisions applicable to oil and gas installations, could also be delivered in England andNorthern Ireland by the new MMO. As the Government’s coordinator of marine expertise,the MMO could be the most appropriate home for this aspect of CCS regulation. Thedecision on the MMO’s role will depend on the final choice and scope of the regulatoryframework for CCS. If chosen, we will ensure that the MMO can draw on the necessarytechnical expertise to fulfil this role.

Oil and gas5.90 Many stakeholders thought that the oil and gas regime ought to be included in the scope

of the Marine Bill and its provisions on licensing. They argued that including this sectorwas necessary for Government to be able to deliver a holistic marine management regime.We have carefully considered the arguments put forward and the pros and cons ofbringing the oil and gas sector within the current reforms.

5.91 The exploration for and exploitation of oil and gas is closely regulated under the PetroleumAct 1998. It is a system, operated by the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI), whichprovides the kind of tailored, targeted and proportionate control of the industry that bothregulators and the industry require and that we intend through the Marine Bill tointroduce for other sectors. The oil and gas sector will of course feature in and takeaccount of marine plans (as described in 4.85 – 4.88) when making licensing andconsenting decisions. But in the absence of any compelling evidence that the currentsystem is failing, on balance we believe that the resources we have available are bestdirected at introducing other reforms that will bring greater benefits.

5.92 Because of the urgent need to increase the UK’s reserves of gas, the DTI is developingproposals for legislation on the sub-seabed storage of natural gas. Defra and the DTI areworking closely together on this project to ensure that any legislation that is needed isintroduced as soon as possible. Such legislation will of course incorporate provisions toensure that the impact of natural gas storage is closely controlled, and that theenvironment, marine heritage and other sea users are properly protected.

5.93 The DTI launched its public consultation on 24 November 2006,21 and the findings will bepublished shortly in the Energy White Paper. The path for introducing an enabling regimeis not yet certain, but the Marine Bill is available as an option, should the timing be right.

56


Constructing renewable energy installations in the sea5.94 The Government’s programme of action to tackle climate change is wide-ranging. An

essential element of finding the right energy mix for the UK’s future energy needs isrenewable energy, and our aim is that 10% of our electricity is generated by renewablesources by 2010 and 20% by 2020. Through the Marine Bill, we will facilitateachievement of this target by simplifying the licensing process for marine renewableenergy installations.

5.95 The construction of mosti offshore renewable electricity generating stations in Great Britainis subject to consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and licensing underFEPA.j There is significant overlap of these provisions, since the Electricity Act 1989contains environmental provisions, albeit not as extensive as those of FEPA. We think thatdual licensing of this sort, when both parts actually fall to the same territorialadministration, is wasteful and unnecessary. It can cause practical confusion and delay, andcan get in the way of considering applications in a joined-up way. Particular confusion canarise if different decisions are unnecessarily taken at different times, not least in decidingwhether some factors are relevant to just one of the decisions or to both of them. Inaddition, laying the cables to take the electricity generated by the wind farm, or wave ortidal installation, to the shore is subject to consent under the CPA.

5.96 We believe that since building an offshore renewable energy installation and connecting itto the grid is a discrete project, developers ought to be able to apply to do that through asingle process, consistent with our one project:one licence principle.

5.97 Reforms made in Great Britain in 2004 removed the need for CPA consent for theconstruction (but not the laying of all the associated cables) of offshore renewable energyinstallations but there is room for further improvement. In particular, we proposeremoving, where possible, the current dual licensing that applies to the construction ofoffshore generating stations larger than the thresholds set out at footnote (i) below, andthe need for a separate CPA consent for laying cables, whilst maintaining the same levelof environmental controls. Where planning permission and a FEPA licence are currentlyrequired for developments below these thresholds the system will remain as it is now,though the reformed licensing regime will replace FEPA in its current form.

5.98 We therefore intend to create a single licensing system for the construction of offshorerenewable energy installations, where responsibility for both existing licences currently lieswithin the same administration. When the licensing authority issues consent for a projectunder Section 36, it will also be able to grant concurrently the appropriate environmentalpermission. One way to do this would be by empowering the Section 36 consentingauthority to direct that a licence has been given under the reformed marine licensingregime as well.

57

i Consent is needed for stations in the territorial sea with a capacity of over 1MW and for those in the offshore area with acapacity of over 50MW.

j The equivalent provision in Northern Ireland is Article 39 of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.


58

5.99 This will in no way sidestep the safeguards that the Marine Bill will put in place. The Section36 consenting authority will only be able to direct that consent has been given by ensuringthat all of the requirements established by the new licensing regime are met. That willinclude ensuring that the duty to take the environmental impacts of a proposeddevelopment into account includes assessment of its marine impacts. (This duty is set out inSchedule 9 to the Electricity Act 1989.36) Marine renewable energy projects will be subject tothe same reformed environmental, navigational and other safeguards as any other project.

5.100 The marine environmental controls that currently apply to the construction of offshorerenewable energy installations under FEPA fall short of modern better regulationrequirements. Compared with the Electricity Act 1989, they lack procedural transparency:there are no advertising and publicity provisions, and there are no satisfactoryarrangements for holding public inquiries. These are defects that stakeholders asked us toput right. Our proposals for reformed rules will address them, as they will for all activitiessubject to the reformed licensing regime.

5.101 Consent under Section 36 can already be accompanied by a direction that any necessaryplanning permission for the proposed development is deemed to have been granted.This power enables the Section 36 consenting authority to address issues associated withconnecting an offshore generating station to the grid on land. As with our proposals forthe reformed licensing regime, all the relevant planning rules apply to planning permissiongranted in this way. In particular, the land planning and Section 36 processes differsignificantly and can result in separate public inquiries on a single project. We areexamining how we might go about simplifying this aspect of the process and so reinforceour ability to deliver a simple one stop shop route for the offshore renewable energydevelopments to which Section 36 applies.

5.102 As stated above, this single licensing solution will apply where responsibility for both theElectricity Act 1989 and FEPA licences lies within the same territorial administration. Atpresent this means in England and Scotland. Applicants with proposals in marine waters inWales will benefit from the same streamlining of the marine licensing process. However, inorder to preserve the balance of devolved powers, responsibility for the environmentalconditions of the licence will remain with Welsh ministers. Responsibility for energyconsents and FEPA licensing is devolved to Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland ministershave confirmed that they wish equivalent reforms to be made in their area.

5.103 We propose that the MMO should generally be the consenting authority for offshorerenewable energy installations up to a certain size. We will ensure that the MMO, whengranting consent under Section 36, will be able to direct that planning permission forassociated development is also deemed to be granted, as happens under the currentsystem. In so doing, it will be able to provide a one stop shop, one project:one licenceservice covering both land and sea aspects of these projects. However, the Governmenthas announced that it will take forward recommendations by Eddington and Barker onthe planning system for major infrastructure projects. The Government will set out itsproposals in a Planning Reform White Paper, in the near future, including thedetermination of major offshore renewable energy installations.


5.104 Our proposal will make the process of considering the desirability of such developmentmore user-friendly and offer a better customer service. It will facilitate development inappropriate places and on appropriate terms through a more proportionate and targetedregulatory system. A single application process will reduce the administrative burden onapplicants, regulators and consultees. It will benefit all stakeholders who wish to engagein the decision-making process, and indeed the quality of this process, since all factors willbe considered together. We think this is a more transparent procedure for enablingsustainable development than the current dual process, and one that responds directly tothe concerns that many stakeholders have expressed.

Harbours Legislation5.105 The current approach to authorising marine works in or near port or harbour areas is

complicated and often archaic – some of the legislation dates back two centuries or more.We want to ensure wherever possible that a straightforward and consistent system ofregulation applies in future. We also want to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, andprovide a clear basis for the implementation of European environmental rules.

5.106 The reforms of the CPA that we are making mean that we can make the rules relating toharbours clearer, and focus them in a proportionate way on real world problems. Weexpect to make use of the ability under the new provisions of the reformed licensingregime to exempt some activities from control and we may modernise others bydisapplying local statutory provisions. This does not mean sweeping away local rules thatwork well. Where local powers to control the environmental or navigational impacts ofworks in a port or harbour are in place and effective, we will not change them. Indeed,we want to make it clear that our reformed licensing regime will not then applyseparately. We will also address problems through guidance and improved practicerelating to how different rules fit together.

Specific proposals

5.107 We consider that a local harbour authority with its own local powers is generally bestplaced to regulate works in a harbour area to ensure safe navigation. At present, CPAconsent is not needed for dredging authorised directly by a local Act, but is generallyrequired for dredging authorised under it, i.e. when done with permission of a harbourauthority. This means that harbour authorities can carry out such works but others, eventhose seeking permission of the harbour authority, need the permission of centralgovernment in addition. We will remove this bureaucratic requirement. The reformedmarine licensing regime will control the environmental impact of these activities(depending on their scale), but navigational safety will not be an issue.

5.108 Under the current Harbours regime, a FEPA licence is often issued in addition to an orderunder the Harbours Act 1964. In many cases, this is an unnecessary burden. We thereforealso want to ensure that when such an order authorises and specifies work in sufficientdetail to carry out any environmental assessments required, the work should normally beexempt from the reformed marine licensing system. We will ensure that these orders canalso include operations outside harbour areas as well as works within them where they are

59


all part of the port infrastructure or operations. This will reduce the overlap of harboursand environmental legislation and the duplication of licensing. Harbour authorities willliaise with developers to clarify the level of detail required so their plan can be entirelyauthorised by an order under the Harbours Act 1964 and does not require a licence underthe reformed marine licensing regime. Where sufficient detail cannot be provided, it willstill be appropriate and proportionate to require a separate marine licence application later.

5.109 Likewise, where operations are authorised under either the reformed marine licensingsystem or local navigational controls, we also propose that they should not also needconsent under the Land Drainage Act 1991, nor be subject to the EPP.

5.110 Antiquated rules and complicated provisions are particularly prevalent in local harbouracts. We believe it is important that local navigational provisions, which remain after ourreforms have been introduced, should meet modern regulatory standards. But the varietyof these rules is such that the task would have to be done by secondary legislation afterthe Bill itself. We therefore intend to ensure that the Secretary of State, or appropriatedevolved administration, can modernise out of date local rules.

5.111 Neither the Harbours Act 1964 nor the CPA apply in Northern Ireland. Northern Irelandwill consider whether to implement harbour reforms equivalent to those proposed forEngland and Wales.

Transport and Works Act 19925.112 The Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA) enables certain major infrastructure projects,

such as bridges, barrages and tunnels, to be permitted without requiring primarylegislation. Its comprehensive procedure can substitute for most other licensing. It does soin the case of CPA, though FEPA is usually applied in the normal way.

5.113 Since other licensing regimes can be disapplied under the TWA, the problem of legislativeoverlap does not exist. We propose to maintain the ability for an order under the TWA toexclude the effect of reformed marine licensing, as long as equivalent consideration ofenvironmental and navigational issues is made. This may be the subject of guidance.k

Small scale telecommunications development in the sea5.114 CPA consent is normally needed before a cable can be laid on or under the seabed, and

for its subsequent maintenance and removal, if those operations could have navigationalimpacts. However, certain operators of electronic communications networksl can carry outa limited range of works in the waters of the UK territorial sea without such consent.These works still need the Secretary of State’s permission under communications rules.They may also need a FEPA licence, and in addition are subject to the rights oflandowners including the Crown.

60

k The Transport and Works Act 1992 does not apply in Northern Ireland.

l Code operators” under the Electronic Communications Code, as certified by Ofcom (the independent regulator andcompetition authority for the UK communications industries).


61

5.115 We think these tidal works powers are confusing, over-complicated and unnecessary.They provide a duplicative consenting process with no material benefit for eitheroperators or regulators. Respondents to the Marine Bill consultation supportedintroduction of a more user-friendly, transparent and consistent approach. So, we proposeto repeal the provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1984 that allow for consent underthat Act instead of licensing under general marine rules.

5.116 The environment, marine heritage, or other legitimate uses of the sea will remain fullyprotected. Where an assessment of the environmental and navigational impacts of suchworks is needed, it will be carried out under the reformed licensing regime. If such anassessment is not required, however, we will be able to use the power to exempt activitieswith little or no adverse impact from the need for a licence.

5.117 We do not propose to take away the protection that landowners enjoy under the 1984Act when an operator is then permitted to carry out works on land that the operatordoes not own.

Delivering the new licensing regime5.118 As we have said, consistency of decision-making was extremely important to stakeholders

in the consultation. The integration of marine licensing was also very important to many,especially stakeholders with an environmental interest or a desire to benefit from areduced regulatory burden.

5.119 The legislative reforms that we have described will provide many of the benefits that weare seeking to bring to the marine area through the Marine Bill. By moving towards a oneproject:one licence solution to marine regulation, we are overcoming some of thetensions that our present fragmented law and delivery mechanisms create. In England andWales, we have already obtained some administrative streamlining benefits through theestablishment in 2001 of Defra’s Marine Consents and Environment Unit (MCEU). TheMCEU will join the Marine Fisheries Agency (MFA) forming the Marine and FisheriesAgency on 1 April 2007.

5.120 However, to realise fully our vision for the marine area, we believe the time has come tocomplement those legislative changes with the establishment of a dedicated new deliverybody. At present at least four different Whitehall departments, each with its own set ofpriorities, performance targets and cultures, carry out the licensing of marine activities forEngland alone. While departments make every effort to work together on marinelicensing, this inevitably exacerbates the tensions set up by the legislative structures andtends to hinder efficient service delivery.

5.121 Moreover, the service we want to deliver through the Marine Bill is not simply the licensingof marine activities. The Bill provides a set of tools for holistic management of the seas,from the concept of marine planning, drawing in measures for environmental protectionand coastal fisheries management, through licensing to monitoring and enforcement. Webelieve it is important for the effective and consistent delivery of the whole chain that onebody should be responsible for as much of it as possible. We will therefore set up a newMMO to provide that function in relation to England and Northern Ireland and elsewherefor functions that are not devolved. Scottish and Welsh ministers are considering deliveryoptions for their devolved licensing functions (see 8.10 – 8.15).


62

5.122 The MMO, with a broad range of functions, will deliver the integration that was muchsought after by many stakeholders. Some of the most important benefits simply could notbe as effectively delivered by two or more organisations. If delivery was split betweenseveral bodies, on the one hand, it would probably cost more to ensure the same qualityof service; and on the other, if the same total resource were put in, it would almostcertainly provide a poorer service. Housing a large number of functions in a single unitwould create an MMO that could:

• develop a single corporate body of expertise and organisational philosophy, focused onproviding an excellent service for all stakeholders;

• apply a single interpretation of marine planning to licensing, including ensuringconsistency between different sectors; and

• because it was involved in the earlier stages, continue that through to a consistentapproach to monitoring and enforcement.

5.123 With these characteristics, it will have the capability to deliver the holistic management ofthe seas that we are committed to. The MMO will be the Government’s coordinator ofmarine expertise. It will combine the collected in-house marine knowledge and experienceof much of central Government with the competence to draw on the Government’s otheradvisors and the wider expert community to give authoritative advice and make well-informed decisions.

MMO Licensing Functions

5.124 The MMO’s ability to make this ambition reality will depend on the breadth of itsresponsibilities. The greater its influence over the marine environment, the greater will bethe benefits it will be able to deliver.

5.125 We propose that the MMO will carry out all of the functions currently undertaken byDefra’s MCEU and the MFA, plus regulation of aggregate dredging (currently carried outby CLG, but transferring to the MFA on 1 April 2007) and currently non-licensabledredging (see 8.18 for a fuller list of activities). To take a credible step towards holisticmarine management, we believe it is vital that the MMO should have a role expandedsignificantly beyond these functions.

5.126 We describe in 5.94 – 5.104 above our proposal to amend the Electricity Act 1989 andEnergy Act 2004 to create a single licensing regime, where possible, for offshorerenewable energy installations. The licensing functions are currently shared between DTIand Defra.

5.127 We also envisage the MMO having a role in the regulation of offshore CCS activities. Thescope of this role will depend upon whether an integrated regime for both onshore andoffshore CCS is developed.

5.128 In addition, the MMO will also assume responsibility for administering the regulation ofharbour developments that is carried out at present by the Department for Transport(DfT). This includes administering orders under the Harbours Act 1964, and local andprivate harbour Acts in England and, for non-fisheries harbours, Wales. In doing so, theMMO will consult with central Government policy leads when appropriate. Developmentconsent for major port projects will be considered in the Planning Reform White Paper.


63

5.129 This is a very important element of our restructuring of the marine licensing system. Thegreatest challenges we face, both for marine planning and marine licensing, are generallyat the coast, where the density of activities competing for space is highest. Many of theseactivities occur in and around harbours. Including consideration of harbours applicationsin the MMO’s duties will therefore significantly enhance its ability to deliver an integratedapproach to management in the coastal zone.

The MMO in Northern Ireland

5.130 In Northern Ireland, ministerial preference is currently for a regional office of the MMO,resourced to deliver a holistic approach to marine management on a non-sectoral basis. In terms of licensing, the regional office would assume responsibility for the reformedlicensing regime and tidal works both within fisheries and non-fisheries harbours. It wouldalso carry out relevant functions undertaken by the SFI for which the Department ofAgriculture and Rural Development is currently responsible. Northern Ireland will considerfurther the extent of the role of the MMO in renewable energy licensing in NorthernIreland in light of the Planning Reform White Paper. It will also consider further whetherregulation of harbour developments by the MMO is appropriate in its jurisdiction.

Whose MMO?

5.131 The Marine Bill will implement UK Government policy. The MMO will therefore bedelivering a service on behalf of several different departments and as such, although itwill be set up under legislation introduced to Parliament by Defra it will be a Governmentbody. The details of how we will respect the different departmental priorities areaddressed in 8.97 – 8.105, which set out the governance arrangements.


64

Project

Poole Harbour

Major channel deepening (dredging)

River Hamble

Replacement & reconfiguration ofHarbour Master’s jetty

The Solent (Lepe & Gunnard)

Installation of portable water supply pipe

Kentish Flats wind farm

Application for offshore wind farm

Princes Channel

Capital dredging & sand material re-use

Columbine Building at VentureQuays, Isle of Wight

Development & reclamation

Coast Protection Scheme atNewbiggin Bay, Northumberland

Construction of breakwater & beachre-nourishment

Licences required

FEPA and CPA

Total: 2

Harbour Authority Works Consent,FEPA disposal licence, FEPAconstruction licence, Land DrainageAct 1991 consent, landowner’sconsent and planning permission.

Total: 6

FEPA and CPA

Total: 2

FEPA, CPA, Electricity Act 1989

Total: 3

FEPA and Local Act Consent

Total: 2

Planning permission, Land DrainageAct 1991 consent, CPA and FEPA

Total: 4

FEPA and CPA

Total: 2

Licences required under proposed regime

Reformed marine licence

Total: 1

Reformed marine licence andlandowner’s consent and planningpermission (Local controls may bedeemed more appropriate, but noduplication should occur.)

Total: 3


Total: 1

(amended) Electricity Act 1989

Total: 1

Reformed marine licence (or localconsent if sufficiently modernised)

Total: 1

Reformed marine licence andplanning permission

Total: 2


Total: 1

Table 2: The effect of our proposals on the number of licences required for certain projectsm


m Using information provided by KPMG in “Marine Licensing Case Studies, Handover Document”, prepared for Defra, 29 March2006 (updated by Defra, June 2006).

65

Our Aim

To introduce new tools for conservation of marine wildlife that together with existing ones can:halt the deterioration in the state of the UK’s marine biodiversity and promote recovery wherepracticable, support healthy functioning and resilient marine ecosystems, ensure environmentalconsiderations are at the heart of decision-making processes, and provide mechanisms that candeliver current and future European and international conservation obligations.

Summary of our proposals6.1 Marine biodiversity is subject to a variety of impacts, both natural and man made. In many

cases these impacts are damaging marine species and habitats and having a negativeinfluence on the capacity of marine ecosystems to support the goods and services theycurrently provide for us. This has some serious implications for the benefits we derive fromthe sea, from tourism and recreation to climate regulation and waste assimilation.

6.2 We must ensure that we manage the marine environment to ensure we protect importantbiodiversity and secure maximum benefits from it. This necessarily means minimising theimpact of damaging activities and enabling biodiversity improvements. To do this we wantto introduce new tools to address issues of particular concern.

6.3 We currently have the duty under European law to designate areas in our seas to protect asmall number of species and habitats considered of European importance. We propose tointroduce a parallel mechanism to designate and manage Marine Conservation Zones(MCZs). These are intended to provide protection for species and habitats considered ofnational value that cannot be protected under European law.

6.4 This will give us the ability to manage, where appropriate, the majority of activities thatcan have an adverse impact on biodiversity. The main exceptions are those currentlyunregulated activities such as recreational and tourist activities that have the potential toimpact on marine biodiversity. To address this we intend to introduce by-law makingpowers to manage unregulated activities where these might have an impact on a MCZ oron important marine wildlife outside protected sites.

6.5 By-law making powers can take time to introduce so we also propose to introduce interimmeasures to enable us to prevent activities from damaging important sites or specieswhilst by-laws are being developed and consulted upon.

6.6 We plan to complement these new mechanisms with improved and modernisedenforcement arrangements by giving enforcers new, updated powers and acomprehensive set of tools to ensure compliance with conservation legislation.

6.7 We will continue to develop a suite of Marine Objectivesn that will clarify what we want toachieve for marine ecosystems, including the biodiversity and human activities withinthem. We do not propose giving these objectives a statutory basis due to their developing

6. Marine Nature Conservation

n Referred to as Marine Ecosystem Objectives in the 2006 Marine Bill consultation document

66

nature and the need for a flexible approach to the dynamic marine environment –although many of the objectives will draw on existing international statutory obligations,including any developed to implement the proposed Marine Strategy Directive. Wepropose that they will form an integral component of marine plans and will thereforeinfluence decision-making processes.

Introduction

Objectives for marine biodiversity and ecosystems

6.8 Our policies for marine nature conservation aim to deliver the vision and strategic goalsoutlined in 1.11, as well as delivering a number of international commitments that wehave entered into to confirm the importance that we place on the marine biodiversityconservation. The most relevant international commitments and European obligations are:

• halt the decline of biodiversity across the European Union by 201030;

• establish and maintain a network of ‘Natura 2000’ protected areas and conservespecies and habitats of European importance25;

• establish an ecologically coherent network of well managed Marine Protected Areas(MPA) by 2010;51 and

• implement an ecosystem approach to management31.

6.9 Marine biodiversity in UK waters is under increasing pressure from human activities. Awide body of research has identified that significant and important processes of themarine environment are under threat of irreversible damage, including those thatassimilate waste, regulate the climate and recycle nutrients. These processes are linked tothe biodiversity found in the marine environment.57

6.10 We wish to ensure that we can continue to make full use of the marine environment andits resources, whilst ensuring that it is resilient to human impacts. We want to avoiddamaging it to the point that it can no longer provide these essential services and to allowdamaged ecosystems to recover.

Climate change

6.11 Climate change has been recognised as the greatest environmental challenge facing theworld today. Rising global temperatures will bring changes in weather patterns, rising sealevels and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. The impactsclimate change will have on biodiversity will be significant but are difficult to predict.Already the variety and distribution of marine species are being altered by climate change.Cold-water species of plankton, fish and intertidal invertebrates are retreating northwardsaround the UK and the ranges of southern species are expanding.48 We can expect to seea geographic shift in the distribution of species in UK waters and an overall change in thespecies living here. We must be able to respond to a changing environment.


67

Current conservation mechanisms

6.12 A range of biodiversity measures, legislative and non-legislative, already exist to delivernature conservation benefits in the marine area and have proven valuable in deliveringconservation gains. Table 3 outlines some of the key conservation specific legislation forthe UK that is currently relevant to the marine environment.o

6.13 Conservation benefits are also delivered in other ways. For example, through theapplication of:

• the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive to licensing regimes ensuringproper consideration of environmental impacts in decision-making;

• the Water Framework Directive (WFD)26 and the subsequent improvements to habitats,morphology and water quality; and

• fisheries management controls helping to reduce the adverse impacts of fishing activity.

6.14 However, current measures are unable to fully deliver our biodiversity objectives because:

• they do not provide the means to protect the full range of important biodiversity in UK waters; and

• most conservation tools were designed primarily to address terrestrial needs.

Geographic scope

6.15 The proposals in this section are those of the UK Government and relate to the UKoffshore area and to England and the adjacent UK territorial sea. Similar issues exist in thedevolved administrations and it will be for each of them to decide how to apply thesemechanisms in waters for which it is responsible.

6.16 We are considering with Wales and Northern Ireland the arrangements for delivering theseproposals in UK territorial waters adjacent to those countries. The Scottish Executive isconsidering the benefits of taking on additional responsibilities for nature conservation inthe Scottish Fishing Zone and what new arrangements would be necessary in doing so.

6.17 The new measures we are proposing will apply to:

• marine waters out to the seaward limit of the UK Territorial Sea adjacent to England,Wales and Northern Irelandp;

• UK offshore waters from 12 to 200 nautical miles or the median line betweencountries; and

• the UK Continental Shelf, including areas beyond 200 nautical miles.

6.18 UK rights in relation to the continental shelf and offshore waters are different. Where thecontinental shelf extends beyond offshore waters the rights of the UK relate only to theseabed and subsoil and therefore site and species protection would only be possible forseabed species and habitats in this area.


o This document refers only to UK and GB legislation. Similar legislation exists in the devolved administrations but is not referred to here.

p The delivery arrangements in each administration will be different and are under discussion.

68

6.19 The landward boundary of these provisions will generally be Mean High Water Springs(MHWS). However, the new measures will also be applicable to activities taking place onland where they may have an adverse impact on marine biodiversity. For example, new by-law powers may be used to restrict activities taking place near the foreshore wherethey are having a negative effect on the achievement of a MCZ’s objectives. Some of theresponsibilities proposed in this section will therefore be relevant to bodies or geographiclocations further inland.

6.20 References to the proposed nature conservation functions of the Marine ManagementOrganisation (MMO) relate only to the delivery of those functions in relation to the UKoffshore area, territorial waters adjacent to England, and internal waters in England. It islikely that the MMO will have functions in territorial waters adjacent to Northern Irelandbut the detailed arrangements for this are still under discussion. The Welsh AssemblyGovernment does not intend the MMO to have functions in relation to Wales that havebeen devolved. This does not preclude the MMO delivering services on behalf of theWelsh Assembly Government by agreement. For Wales, the references to the MMO shouldbe taken to mean the relevant body in Wales. Scottish ministers are currently consideringpossible mechanisms to deliver marine environmental objectives in the UK territorial seawithin Scotland.

6.21 Where the Secretary of State exercises nature conservation functions in the Scottish andNorthern Irish Fisheries Zones, he will consult the relevant devolved administration inrelation to how this may affect the exercise of any devolved functions.

Regulating Better

6.22 Regulating better is about ensuring that the Government regulates only where necessary,it does so at the least cost and it delivers the intended outcomes. We cannot protect theenvironment, or promote a competitive, efficient economy without an appropriateframework of regulation and the necessary commitment and resources to enforce it. Sobetter regulation is about finding more effective ways of delivering protection withoutplacing unnecessary burdens on those who are regulated.35

6.23 Our proposals for improving the protection of marine wildlife are based on introducingmeasures that are targeted at addressing key risks and are proportionate to the threatposed by those risks. We do not propose to introduce new measures where there is not ademonstrable need.

The Marine Bill and European legislation

6.24 The measures we are proposing would complement existing nature conservationlegislation transposing the European Wild Birds23 and Habitats25 Directives. This would giveus a two-tiered approach to nature conservation in the marine area:

• species and habitats important at the European level protected through conservationlegislation transposing the strict requirements of the Wild Birds and Habitat Directives; and

• species, habitats and ecosystems that are important domestically protected throughnew provisions allowing greater flexibility to take account of other factors, includingsocial and economic considerations.


69

Tab

le 3

: Nat

ure

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Leg

isla

tio

n A

pp

lyin

g in

th

e M

arin

e A

reaq

Feat

ure

Pro

tect

ed A

reas

Hab

itat

sPr

ote

cted

(exa

mp

les)

Spec

ies

Pro

tect

ion

Mea

sure

s(e

xam

ple

s)

Pro

tect

edSp

ecie

s(e

xam

ple

s)

NER

C

CR

OW

WC

A 8

1 (a

s am

end

ed)

Abi

lity

to n

otify

Site

s of

Spe

cial

Sci

entif

icIn

tere

st (

SSSI

s) g

ener

ally

ext

endi

ng t

o lo

cal

auth

ority

juris

dict

ion

and

Mar

ine

Nat

ure

Rese

rves

(M

NRs

) up

to

3nm

.

Abi

lity

to c

ontr

ol o

pera

tions

like

ly t

o da

mag

esp

ecia

l int

eres

t fe

atur

es o

f a

SSSI

and

to

esta

blis

h M

anag

emen

t Sc

hem

es a

nd N

otic

esw

ith o

ffen

ces

for

failu

re t

o co

mpl

y

Estu

arie

s, c

halk

ree

fs,

seal

hau

l out

site

s.

A r

ange

of

spec

ies

prot

ectio

n is

pro

vide

d. F

orex

ampl

e th

e fo

llow

ing

is p

rohi

bite

d up

to

12nm

:

The

inte

ntio

nal o

r re

ckle

ss k

illin

g, in

jurin

g or

taki

ng o

f w

ild b

irds

and

/ or

the

des

truc

tion

of t

heir

nest

s.

In r

elat

ion

to w

ild a

nim

als

liste

d in

Sch

edul

e 5

of t

he A

ct it

is a

n of

fenc

e to

inte

ntio

nally

or

reck

less

ly k

ill, i

njur

e or

tak

e su

ch a

nim

als

or t

opo

sses

s or

con

trol

any

live

or

dead

spe

cim

ens

of s

uch

anim

als

or t

o in

tent

iona

lly o

r re

ckle

ssly

dam

age

or d

estr

oy a

ny s

truc

ture

or

plac

e us

edby

suc

h an

imal

s fo

r sh

elte

r or

pro

tect

ion.

The

dist

urba

nce

of d

olph

ins,

wha

les

and

bask

ing

shar

ks is

als

o pr

ohib

ited

up t

o 12

nm.

Porp

oise

s, P

ink

Sea

Fan,

Bas

king

Sha

rk,

Wha

les

Hab

itat

Reg

ula

tio

ns

1994

Dut

y to

des

igna

te a

UK

sui

te o

f Sp

ecia

l Are

asof

Con

serv

atio

n (S

AC

) for

spe

cies

and

hab

itats

liste

d in

the

Hab

itats

Dire

ctiv

e up

to

12nm

Abi

lity

to e

stab

lish

Man

agem

ent

Agr

eem

ents

,re

stric

tions

on

cert

ain

activ

ities

and

con

trol

of

pote

ntia

lly d

amag

ing

oper

atio

ns u

p to

12n

m.

Sand

bank

s, E

stua

ries,

Ree

fs,

Subm

arin

est

ruct

ure

mad

e by

leak

ing

gase

s up

to

12nm

A li

mite

d nu

mbe

r of

list

ed m

arin

e sp

ecie

s ar

epr

otec

ted

thro

ugh

a pr

ohib

ition

on

killi

ng,

capt

urin

g or

dis

turb

ing

Euro

pean

Pro

tect

edSp

ecie

s (E

PS)

and

dam

agin

g or

des

troy

ing

the

bree

ding

site

s or

res

ting

plac

es o

f su

chsp

ecie

s up

to

12nm

.

The

maj

ority

of

spec

ies

are

land

bas

ed o

rin

shor

e sp

ecie

s.

Dol

phin

s, P

orpo

ises

, W

hale

s, M

arin

e Tu

rtle

san

d St

urge

on (

EPS)

up

to 1

2nm

Off

sho

re M

arin

e R

egu

lati

on

s

Dut

y to

des

igna

te a

sui

te o

f Sp

ecia

l Are

as o

fC

onse

rvat

ion

(SA

C)

and

Spec

ial P

rote

ctio

nA

reas

(SP

A)

for

spec

ies

liste

d in

the

Bird

s an

dH

abita

ts D

irect

ive

and

habi

tats

list

ed in

the

Hab

itats

Dire

ctiv

e be

yond

ter

ritor

ial w

ater

s.

Abi

lity

to e

stab

lish

Man

agem

ent

Agr

eem

ents

,re

stric

tions

on

cert

ain

activ

ities

and

con

trol

of

pote

ntia

lly d

amag

ing

oper

atio

ns b

eyon

dte

rrito

rial w

ater

s.

Sand

bank

s, E

stua

ries,

Ree

fs,

Subm

arin

est

ruct

ure

mad

e by

leak

ing

gase

s be

yond

terr

itoria

l wat

ers

A li

mite

d nu

mbe

r of

list

ed m

arin

e sp

ecie

s ar

epr

otec

ted

thro

ugh

a pr

ohib

ition

on

killi

ng,

capt

urin

g or

dis

turb

ing

and

dam

agin

g or

dest

royi

ng t

he b

reed

ing

site

s or

res

ting

plac

esof

suc

h sp

ecie

s be

yond

UK

ter

ritor

ial w

ater

s.Th

e m

ajor

ity o

f sp

ecie

s ar

e la

nd b

ased

or

insh

ore

spec

ies.

A p

rohi

bitio

n on

kill

ing,

cap

turin

g or

inju

ring

wild

bird

s an

d /

or d

amag

ing

or d

estr

oyin

gth

eir

nest

s is

pro

vide

d.

Dol

phin

s, P

orpo

ises

, W

hale

s, M

arin

e Tu

rtle

san

d St

urge

on (

EPS)

and

Bird

s lis

ted

in A

nnex

Iof

the

Bird

s D

irect

ive

and

regu

larly

occ

urrin

gM

igra

tory

Spe

cies

bey

ond

terr

itoria

l wat

ers

Leg

isla

tio

n

Gen

eral

dut

y on

Pub

lic A

utho

ritie

s to

con

serv

e bi

odiv

ersi

ty.

Abi

lity

to e

stab

lish

man

agem

ent

agre

emen

ts a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith N

E’s

gene

ral p

urpo

se.

Gen

eral

dut

y on

Pub

lic B

odie

s to

hav

e re

gard

to

the

purp

ose

of c

onse

rvin

g bi

olog

ical

div

ersi

ty in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

Con

vent

ion

on B

iodi

vers

ity

Trad

e in

the

pro

tect

ed s

peci

es is

res

tric

ted,

and

cer

tain

met

hods

of

killi

ng o

r ta

king

cer

tain

spe

cies

are

pro

hibi

ted,

und

er a

ll th

ree

regi

mes

.

qSi

mila

r le

gisl

ativ

e pr

ovis

ions

exi

st in

Nor

ther

n Ire

land


6.25 To simplify the legislative framework for marine nature conservation we will consolidatethe regulations that transpose the Wild Birds and Habitats Directives. This will be separatefrom the Marine Bill and will give us an integrated set of regulations applying to all of themarine and terrestrial areas for which we have competence.

Marine Conservation Zones

Our vision for Marine Conservation Zones

By 2020, we want a network of effectively managed sites comprising European marine sitesr

and MCZs, including highly protected sites.

We want this network to conserve enough rare, threatened and representative species andhabitats to maintain and improve biodiversity and ecosystems whilst covering as small an areaas necessary.

We want to:

• by 2008, complete our initial contribution to the network of European Natura 2000 sites,building on the 65 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and 78 Special Protection Areas(SPAs) in the UK that already have a marine element;

• by 2012, have made substantial progress to completing our network by designatingadditional European sites, bringing the total number of fully marine sites in the territorialsea adjacent to England and the UK offshore area to around 30; and

• by 2020, complete a UK site network that effectively conserves marine biodiversity.s

6.26 Protected sites play an important role in conserving sedentary and sessile species andhabitats. They can also protect certain life cycle stages of some mobile species.

6.27 We currently have the power to establish and manage sites for some marine species andhabitats which are considered important at the European level:

• SACs can protect only a small number of marine features, i.e. reefs, sandbanks, seacaves, submarine structures made by leaking gases, and areas that are important in thelife cycle of European protected species such as the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiopstruncatus).

• SPAs can protect habitats that are important for the conservation of migratory birdspecies such as Common Scoter and those such as Avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta) orLittle Egret (Egretta garzetta) which are specified under the EC Wild Birds and HabitatDirectives.

70

r European Marine Sites means sites designated in the marine area as SACs or SPAs under the Habitats and Birds Directives.

s A study for Defra suggests that this may require a in the region of a further 100 fully marine sites in addition to Europeanmarine sites.58


6.28 These powers are limited in their scope to a small range of marine habitats and speciesthat are important on a European scale. As a result, they do not provide the means toprotect the range of habitats and species that are important in UK waters. To conservehealthy marine ecosystems and a full range of biodiversity, and to provide opportunitiesfor recovery, we need a site protection mechanism that can protect a wide range ofspecies and habitats.

Case study: Protecting important biodiversity

The fan shell (Atrina fragilis) is a rare bivalve mollusc. It is found only in a few locationsaround the southern and western shores of the UK in predominantly muddy habitats to adepth of around 400m.

The fan shell is threatened because of its small population size, slow growth rates, andbecause they live with their pointed end embedded in sediment with the posterior (broad)end protruding from the surface. This makes them extremely susceptible to damage causedby, for example, the dropping of anchors from boats and from dredging or certain types offishing practices.

A site protection mechanism could control the most severe impacts on the fan shell, but wecannot currently do this.

Similarly, Ocean quahog (Arctica Icelandica), Sea Grass (Zostera), and maerl beds are all indecline in UK waters and would benefit from this type of protection.

6.29 English Nature’s research report ‘Marine Protected Areas: a review of their use fordelivering marine biodiversity benefits’ concluded that there is very good evidence of thebenefits of marine protected areast for marine biodiversity.33

6.30 Responses to the 2006 Marine Bill consultation document indicated overwhelming supportfor the introduction of a new mechanism for designating marine protected areas, focussedon the conservation of biodiversity.

Purposes of Marine Conservation Zones

6.31 We intend to introduce a new type of marine protected area called a MCZ. We wantMCZs to conserve or aid the recovery of:

• rare or threatened habitats such as seagrass beds and deep soft sediment habitats;

• rare or threatened species such as the sunset cup coral (Leptopsammia pruvoti), thelong-snouted seahorse (Hippocampus ramulosus) and the native oyster (Ostrea edulis);

• globally or regionally significant areas for geographically restricted habitats or speciessuch as estuary habitats and species such as the spiny lobster (Panulirus argus);

• important aggregations or communities of marine species, particularly hotspots, wherea large number of species gather in one area;

71

t In this document the term ‘marine protected area’ refers to any site established under UK law to protect marine features.Where we are referring to the new mechanism that we are proposing to establish we use the specific term ‘MarineConservation Zone’


• areas representing the full range of biodiversity in UK waters, including importanthabitats such as areas of muddy seabed which contain Norway lobster (Nephropsnorvegicus), Northern sea fan (Swiftia pallida) and Angular crab (Goneplax rhomboides);

• areas important for key life cycle stages of mobile species, including habitats known tobe important for reproduction and nursery stages;

• areas contributing to the maintenance of marine biodiversity and ecosystemfunctioning in UK waters; and

• features of particular geological interest.

6.32 We want to be able to designate sites for any of these purposes either individually or incombination.

6.33 By delivering these purposes, MCZ will make an important contribution to the functioningand quality of the wider marine environment, and thus an important role in thesustainable use of our seas. They will do this by providing a refuge within which marinespecies can flourish and help repopulate the wider environment, and by protectingimportant species and habitats from destruction.

6.34 Table 4 shows how MCZs will fit into the wider range of protected area mechanisms that would be available for use in the marine area and highlights the main differencesbetween them.

Conserving other important marine features

6.35 Other important features and characteristics of the marine environment will be protectedthrough a range of means:

• physical marine features and ecological processes that play an important role insupporting marine ecosystems and biodiversity can be protected by a range of means,including considering their relative importance through the marine planning process;

• sites of special archaeological or historic interest within 12 nautical miles will beprotected through specific heritage mechanisms currently being considered by theDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS);u

• important seascapes and views from land would be considered within the marineplanning process (which will be more appropriate to their large scale). The UK marinepolicy statement could include objectives describing the importance of seascapes, andviews and how we wish to treat them. More detailed plans would allow us to considerseascapes and views in the context of the priorities for specific areas;

• spawning and nursery areas and other areas important for commercial fish stocks cancurrently be protected under fisheries legislation. They could also be protected by MCZsunder the criteria set out above; and

• areas that are important for marine ecosystem research or education purposes will vary,but in many cases will be provided as a consequence of establishing MCZs for thepurposes set out in 6.31 above.

72

u See http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/Historic_environment/heritage/heritage_protection_review.htm


73

Tab

le 4

: Mar

ine

Pro

tect

ed A

rea

Mec

han

ism

s

Feat

ure

Geo

gra

ph

icsc

op

e

Sele

ctio

nR

atio

nal

e

Leve

l of

Site

Pro

tect

ion

Man

agem

ent

Too

ls

Off

ence

s

SSSI

v

Land

bas

ed s

ites

gene

rally

ext

endi

ngto

loca

l aut

horit

yju

risdi

ctio

n.

Site

s se

lect

ed a

t a

natio

nal l

evel

whe

reth

e na

ture

cons

erva

tion

agen

cyco

nsid

ers

the

land

to

be o

f sp

ecia

l int

eres

t.

Site

s ar

e m

anag

ed t

oac

hiev

e fa

vour

able

cond

ition

.

Man

agem

ent

Agr

eem

ents

,Sc

hem

es a

nd N

otic

esth

at r

ange

fro

mvo

lunt

ary

toco

mpu

lsor

yar

rang

emen

ts.

Cre

atio

n of

by-

law

s.

Vario

us r

elat

ing

tore

quire

men

ts o

now

ners

and

occ

upie

rsan

d pu

blic

bod

ies.

It is

an o

ffen

ce f

or a

nyon

eto

inte

ntio

nally

or

reck

less

ly d

estr

oy o

rda

mag

e th

e sp

ecia

lfe

atur

es o

f a

SSSI

.

SAC

s (0

-12n

m)

Land

bas

ed &

0-

12nm

Man

agem

ent

Sche

mes

and

Not

ices

rang

ing

from

volu

ntar

y to

com

puls

ory

arra

ngem

ents

.M

NR

by-la

ws

whe

rene

cess

ary

for

site

sw

hich

are

not

SSS

Is

Lim

ited

site

/hab

itat

base

d of

fenc

es b

utSS

SI o

ffen

ces

will

appl

y up

to

SSSI

boun

dary

SAC

s (O

ffsh

ore

)

>12

nm

Man

agem

ent

Sche

mes

and

oth

erm

easu

res

whe

rene

cess

ary

such

as

seek

ing

fishe

ries

clos

ures

thr

ough

the

Com

mon

Fis

herie

sPo

licy

Off

ence

s pr

opos

ed in

OM

Rs f

or d

amag

e to

offs

hore

hab

itats

and

dist

urba

nce

tosp

ecie

s fo

r w

hich

asi

te is

des

igna

ted

SPA

s (0

-12n

m)

Land

bas

ed &

0-

12nm

Man

agem

ent

Sche

mes

and

Not

ices

rang

ing

from

volu

ntar

y to

com

puls

ory

arra

ngem

ents

. M

NR

by-la

ws

whe

rene

cess

ary

for

site

sw

hich

are

not

SSS

Is

Lim

ited

site

/hab

itat

base

d of

fenc

es b

utSS

SI o

ffen

ces

will

appl

y up

to

SSSI

boun

dary

SPA

s (1

2nm

+)

>12

nm

Man

agem

ent

sche

mes

and

othe

r m

easu

res

whe

re n

eces

sary

suc

has

see

king

fish

erie

scl

osur

es t

hrou

gh t

heC

omm

on F

isher

ies

Polic

y

Off

ence

s pr

opos

ed in

OM

Rs f

or d

amag

e to

offs

hore

hab

itats

and

dist

urba

nce

of b

irds

for

whi

ch a

site

iscl

assi

fied

MC

Zs

Insh

ore

and

out

to 2

00nm

A f

lexi

ble

sele

ctio

nm

echa

nism

to

supp

ort

a w

ide

rang

eof

bio

dive

rsity

and

geol

ogic

al f

eatu

res

that

are

impo

rtan

t in

UK

Wat

ers

Site

s m

anag

ed t

oen

sure

site

obj

ectiv

esar

e m

et.

Ada

ptat

ion

ofex

istin

g co

ntro

ls w

ithth

e cr

eatio

n of

new

by-la

ws

whe

rene

cess

ary

to a

chie

veco

nser

vatio

n ai

ms

Gen

eral

off

ence

of

dam

age

orde

stru

ctio

n of

apr

otec

ted

habi

tat.

MPA

Typ

e

SAC

s ar

e se

lect

ed t

o cr

eate

a n

etw

ork

ofpr

otec

ted

area

s fo

r a

limite

d nu

mbe

r of

thre

aten

ed m

arin

e ha

bita

ts a

nd s

peci

esim

port

ant

at a

Eur

opea

n le

vel.

SPA

s ar

e se

lect

ed t

o cr

eate

net

wor

k of

pro

tect

edar

eas

for

bird

s im

port

ant

at a

Eur

opea

n le

vel.

Site

s ar

e pr

otec

ted

from

dam

agin

g de

velo

pmen

t an

d ac

tiviti

es t

hrou

gh c

ontr

ol o

f pl

ans

or p

roje

cts

likel

y to

hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt e

ffec

t, f

or e

xam

ple

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

may

be

atta

ched

to

alic

ence

/con

sent

to

ensu

re d

amag

e is

not

cau

sed.

Site

s ar

e pr

otec

ted

in o

rder

to

prev

ent

dete

riora

tion

and

mai

ntai

n or

res

tore

whe

re p

ossi

ble

thei

rco

nser

vatio

n va

lue

v Similar provisions for Areas of Special Scientific Interest exist in Northern Ireland

Key

EPS

– Eu

rope

an P

rote

cted

Spe

cies

OM

Rs –

Off

shor

e M

arin

e Re

gula

tions

MN

R –

Mar

ine

Nat

ure

Rese

rve

SAC

– S

peci

al A

rea

of C

onse

rvat

ion

NE

– N

atur

al E

ngla

ndSS

SI –

Site

of

Spec

ial S

cien

tific

Inte

rest

NM

– N

autic

al M

ileC

FP –

Com

mon

Fis

herie

s Po

licy


74

Site Selection

6.36 We are proposing a flexible mechanism that could be used to designate individual sites orgroups of sites on their own merits. This would give us the ability to establish sites asinformation becomes available, or as the need is identified, without having to know inadvance where all sites will be located.

6.37 Over time, we want to develop a proportionate network of sites for the conservation ofmarine ecosystems and biodiversity. In developing the network, we would often seek toinclude several areas containing a particular species or habitat (a principle known asreplication) so that if one site were seriously damaged, the network as a whole wouldcontinue to meet its objectives.

6.38 There may be cases where it would be beneficial to extend the boundary of a MCZ inlandto capture the full extent of a habitat or ecological feature. We want the mechanism to beflexible enough to do this.

6.39 We expect that sites would be selected for consideration in accordance with:

• the purposes set out above;

• any relevant plan (where available); and

• any relevant guidance.

Balancing, ecological, social and economic considerations

6.40 When sites are designated using existing mechanisms, consideration is not given to thesocio-economic implications of designation. We wish to take a more flexible approachwith MCZs, one that protects ecosystems and biodiversity without causing inappropriateeconomic or social impacts wherever possible. Responses to the 2006 consultation exerciserevealed overwhelming support for this approach where options existed.

6.41 We propose to take account of both the current situation in the area and the futuresituation anticipated as the result of factors such as planned economic development orclimate change. A careful balance will need to be drawn in considering any relevant socio-economic factors against the ecological importance of a site but the existence ofsocio-economic interests would not necessarily preclude the designation of a MCZ.Guidance on site selection will include consideration of the scope of, and manner in which,socio-economic issues will be reflected. This will ensure that such considerations aresufficiently taken into account while also ensuring delivery of our biodiversity objectives.

6.42 The relative importance of different factors will vary for each site. There may be areas thatwe want to protect because they are particularly sensitive, they are unique areas of rare orthreatened species or habitats, or are essential for ecosystem structure and functioning. Insuch circumstances, ecological considerations are likely to have greater weight and impactson human activities may be unavoidable.

6.43 It is likely that in many cases there will be a choice between a number of areas identifiedas potential sites, particularly for the protection of representative species and habitats.


75

In these cases a number of factors may be relevant in selecting the most appropriate sites,including:

• how well an area meets the conservation purposes set out above;

• how far an area contributes to wider ecological coherence or the coherence of anynetwork of marine protected areas;

• whether an area is also important for other reasons, including special archaeological orhistoric interest, education or research;

• the level of use of an area, including the existence of development or extractionlicenses which might hinder its effective conservation;

• the costs and benefits of introducing site-based controls;

• how far the site contributes to access and recreational opportunities where this iscompatible with its conservation; and

• the relevance of the proposed site in meeting international obligations (including theircontribution to the MPA networks required by the OSPAR Convention, the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development and the Convention on Biological Diversity).

Site selection and marine planning

6.44 It is intended that marine plans will set out the relative importance of different issues andtherefore the context within which sites are selected. It will be possible to designate MCZsin the absence of any marine plans but, where they exist, sites will be selected inaccordance with them unless new evidence or considerations come to light that suggest aneed to depart from plans. In selecting sites in coastal areas, other relevant plans will betaken into account.

Site objectives

6.45 There is a wide variety of species and habitats that require protection and for whichdesignation of a MCZ may be appropriate. The type of protection these species andhabitats will require will vary.

6.46 We propose that objectives will be set for each site. These will establish the natureconservation outcomes to be delivered by the site and will help to clarify the level ofconstraints on marine activities that are required to deliver them.

6.47 Objectives will describe the aims of a MCZ. For instance, whether they include:

• avoiding deterioration of a habitat from its current conservation condition;

• maintaining or enhancing current population levels of a particular species; or

• restoring or enabling the recovery of a habitat to a good condition.


76

6.48 We propose that the statutory nature conservation agenciesw would draft objectives foreach site. The restrictions on activities needed to achieve a site’s objectives will varyconsiderably, depending on:

• the ambitiousness of the objective;

• current levels of activity in the area; and

• the sensitivity of the protected species or habitat.

6.49 In some cases, objectives might be deliverable with very little change to current activities.In others, delivery of objectives may require higher levels of protection, including, forexample, prohibition of any activity within a site.

6.50 Where it is appropriate to allow sites to fully recover and develop, objectives may be setfor MCZs that exclude all damaging or potentially damaging activities. This would createhighly protected marine reserves. Such sites can play an important role in marine protectedarea networks by enabling the recovery of ecosystem structure and function and providinga benchmark for the effectiveness of wider measures such as marine planning. Wheresuitable locations can be identified, we would aim to include a number of such sites in anyMPA network

6.51 We want a flexible system that can deliver the objectives we have set out and throughwhich we can ensure that regulation is tailored to the needs of particular sites andproportionate to specific objectives. This proposal received broad support fromrespondents to the 2006 consultation exercise.

Stakeholder engagement and the site selection process

6.52 We intend to consult on all relevant aspects of sites under consideration as potentialMCZs, including their proposed boundaries and objectives. Relevant stakeholders would beconsulted at key stages of the site identification process, including seeking their views inconsidering the selection of representative sites where there are a number of options.

6.53 The key stakeholders to be consulted would include:

• affected businesses, sectors and those with an interest in an area (in as far as these canbe identified);

• the MMO which will have a key role to play in advising the relevant conservationagencies on the context for site selection, the consideration of socio-economic factors,and in the implementation of licensing controls;

• any bodies or organisations involved in managing activities potentially affected by aMCZ; and

• other relevant statutory advisors such as English Heritage.

w The relevant statutory nature conservation agency in relation to England is Natural England, in relation to Wales is theCountryside Council for Wales and in relation to Northern Ireland is the Environment and Heritage Service (Northern Ireland).


6.54 Consultations on proposals for MCZs would generally include:

• evidence of how the proposed site(s) meets the criteria for which sites can bedesignated;

• the feature(s) that require protection. This could include representative habitats orspecies or the marine ecosystem within the site;

• a description of the contribution of a site to achievement of the objectives of anyprotected area network and wider environmental goals;

• the proposed objectives for the site;

• details of likely adverse impacts on the features for which the site is designated;

• details of proposed measures to manage activities to mitigate impacts, including anydraft by-laws, and an explanation of their need;

• a map of the site showing the proposed boundaries;

• the site’s name, location and the area it covers;

• details of any other designated areas that the site overlaps and how their objectivesinterrelate; and

• a Regulatory Impact Assessment identifying the likely costs and benefits of sitedesignation.

6.55 The selection and designation of MCZs has the potential to create uncertainty for thoseundertaking activities in the marine area. It is vital therefore, that information on proposedsites, impacts likely to affect them, and the likely effects of designation on businessinterests is shared at the earliest possible opportunity.

6.56 We will prepare guidance explaining what information needs to be shared with relevantinterests, when and how. This will include guidance to developers and other businessinterests on the information they will be required to provide in preparing applications.

Designation

6.57 Before decisions on designation are made ministers will need to satisfy themselves thatappropriate consideration has been given to socio-economic considerations and may takethe advice of a range of bodies in doing so, including the statutory nature conservationagencies, the MMO and other appropriate bodies.

6.58 Once a decision has been made on whether a site should be designated as a MCZ, thiswill be published and affected interests informed. This would include information aboutthe site and its proposed management. A register of sites will be held and made publiclyavailable.

6.59 Where a site is likely to be damaged whilst under consideration for designation, voluntarymeasures will be encouraged to limit impacts. Where there is reason to believe that a sitewill be particularly susceptible to damage, we will use available controls to prevent adverseimpacts, including through the licensing regimes and using interim measures to controlfisheries and certain other unregulated activities.

77


Management

6.60 We propose to prevent damage to sites through:

• the planning and licensing regimes operated by the MMO and other licensingauthorities to control the impacts of development and other industrial activities;

• any other licensing regime that may impact upon the site;

• fisheries controls introduced by fisheries authorities;

• nature conservation by-laws and interim measures introducing specific controls onunregulated damaging activities (see 6.129 – 6.159); and

• the creation of an offence of damage or destruction of any species, habitat or otherfeature for which a site has been designated (see 6.95 – 6.98).

6.61 Our proposed changes to the marine licensing and fisheries management regimes will helpto ensure that they are effective in providing protection for MCZs and other marineprotected areas. For example:

• the coverage of all forms of marine dredging by a rationalised licensing regime willensure that these activities can be controlled where they are having impacts onimportant marine sites; and

• a stronger ecological focus for Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) in England, includingthe extension of their by-law making powers to cover fisheries related activities such asbait digging, will enable protection from a wider range of impacting activitiesx.

Duties to deliver site objectives

6.62 We propose a duty on all ministers, Government departments or other public bodies(including SFCs, local authorities, statutory nature conservation agencies and the MMO)wherever they operate to undertake their functions in a way that will contribute to thedelivery of site objectives. This will apply to all site-based conservation designations in themarine area, including SACs and SPAs. This will mean different things for different bodiesbut would include requirements to:

• not permit activities, wherever they take place, that would result in the objectives of asite not being achieved or the integrity of the site to be compromised; and

• take positive measures to control damaging activities, such as taking action to mitigateimpacts, where they have the powers to do so.

6.63 Assessing the impact of activities on the conservation interests of a site can be difficult.We will prepare guidance for regulators and developers on how impacts could be assessedand what impacts would be considered acceptable in certain circumstances.

6.64 The competence for managing certain activities, such as fishing and shipping, in UKwaters lies primarily with international or European bodies. In conducting discussions withthe relevant competent authorities for such activities we would, as a matter of goodenvironmental policy, take account of site designations. Where appropriate we will seekaction from international authorities to protect sites that are being damaged by activitiesover which they have competence.

78

x The restructuring of inshore fisheries management in Wales aims to achieve similar improvements.


79

Licensed Activities

6.65 Licences or other formal permissions or consents are issued to authorise specified activities,such as aggregates dredging or construction operations. In considering whether to grant alicence, and the terms of any such licence, we propose that a full assessment of thepossible impacts on MCZs of proposed activities is carried out. The licensing authoritywould require the licence applicant to undertake the assessment and provide it to them. An EIA will already be required for most licence applications and should be sufficient inmost cases. The statutory nature conservation agencies and the MMO will be proactivelycollecting and collating data and information on the marine area and will provide it todevelopers wherever possible to minimise the costs of undertaking such assessments. Thiswill include guidance and advice to businesses on where activities would be likely to be ofconcern and on what the acceptable levels of impact arising from their activities might be.

6.66 Where an impact assessment identifies that an activity could damage a MCZ and prevent itsobjectives from being achieved, the licensing authority would require applicants to takemitigation measures. These could be in relation to the site itself, but off-site mitigation couldbe appropriate. Mitigation measures could include adjustments to the design, location ortiming of works to avoid impacts on important features. The statutory nature conservationagencies will advise developers and regulators on appropriate mitigation measures.

6.67 If the impacts of an activity could not be mitigated it would not be permitted to proceedunless it was in the public interest and it could be demonstrated that there are no suitablealternatives. We propose that activities could be considered to be in the public interest if itcan be demonstrated that:

• there is a need to address a risk to human health or public safety;

• it is in the interests of national security and defence;

• there is a clear and demonstrable direct environmental benefit on a national orinternational scale;

• there is a substantial contribution to regional economic development or regeneration; or

• failure to proceed would have substantial undesirable environmental, social oreconomic consequences.

6.68 We intend that where a licensing authority decides to grant a licence for an activity toproceed on public interest grounds despite adverse impacts on a MCZ, it will be able torequire applicants to put compensatory measures in place. Compensatory action couldtake several forms including funding:

• an extension of the site to counter the development impact;

• the selection or creation of an alternative site which could deliver similar conservationobjectives; or

• marine conservation work of equivalent value to the damage caused.

6.69 Decisions to proceed on public interest grounds should first be discussed with the relevantminister.

6.70 We propose that in taking decisions on mitigation and compensatory measures licensingauthorities would be required to take the advice of the statutory nature conservationagencies and the MMO (where the MMO is not also the licensing authority).


80

Case Study: Mitigation and compensatory measures – Bathside BayContainer Terminal

Bathside Bay Container Terminal is one of several recent port developments that have securedconsent after detailed examination of environmental impacts.

The proposal was to develop a 69 hectare site within the Stour and Orwell Estuary SPA, as anew container terminal with four ultra-large container ship berths. EIA identified impacts oninter-tidal habitats and upon the movement of sediment that would be detrimental tomudflats and saltmarsh evolution throughout the Stour Estuary. These issues were addressedby the development of a mitigation and compensation package agreed between thedeveloper and English Nature.

To mitigate the impacts of disruption to sediment transport, a programme of sedimentfeeding was developed. This involved re-deposition of maintenance dredged fine sedimentsupstream of the port to feed mudflats and saltmarshes. The works took place within thedesignated site and effectively maintained the status-quo.

To compensate for the direct loss of habitat, the flood defences at Little Oakley in nearbyHamford Water will be realigned to create 138 hectares of new inter-tidal habitat.

Review of licences

6.71 We wish to ensure that our approach to site selection delivers our biodiversity objectiveswhilst avoiding unnecessary conflicts with our social and economic goals. Whereverpossible, we will aim to minimise the number of sites that are established in areas wherethere are high levels of potentially damaging industrial activity or existing licenses forpotentially damaging activities

6.72 Nevertheless, sites could be designated in areas where there are existing licenses forongoing or future activities that are incompatible with the site objectives. For example,where a site hosts rare or sensitive species, such as the sunset cup coral and there are noclear options available for alternative sites with the same level of conservation value. Theremay even be circumstances where there might be shared benefits in co-locating MCZswith sites of industrial activity, such as wind farm sites.

6.73 The modernised licensing regimes discussed in section 5 will give relevant authorities theability to review, vary and revoke licences. This could be used to review existing licenceswithin new sites or in cases where new information has become known about damagecaused to sites by licensed activities.

6.74 We want to ensure that the ability to revisit licences does not undermine the ability ofindustries to effectively plan and undertake their activities in the marine area.

6.75 We propose to set out the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to reviewlicences to protect MCZs. These are likely to exclude situations where:

• varying an existing licence will not provide significant benefits for nature conservation;

• the social, economic or administrative costs of varying a licence are disproportionatelyhigh in comparison to the conservation benefits; and

• the licence is for an activity that is in the public interest.


6.76 Licence amendments or revocations would only cover ongoing activities or those yet to beimplemented. They could not be used to require reversal of previously licensed activities(e.g. by removing infrastructure already in place).

Fisheries

6.77 The proposed duty on public bodies to take measures to protect sites and deliver theirconservation objectives will place a positive obligation on fisheries authorities to regulatefishing activities so they do not cause significant damage to sites. We do not have thecompetence to take action relating to matters covered by the Common Fisheries Policy(CFP). This means that:

• within 6 nautical miles from the coast, SFCs will need to put by-laws in place toprohibit or constrain fisheries activities in inshore waters, which would otherwiseconflict with the conservation objectives of a designated or proposed MCZ; and

• beyond 6 nautical miles, Defra could seek the agreement of the EU Fisheries Council tothe introduction of measures through the CFP to protect areas of national importancethat are fished by fishermen from other European states.y This could involve closure ofareas, or gear restrictions to prevent impacts that would prevent the achievement ofsite objectives.

Unregulated activities

6.78 We propose giving the MMO by-law making powers for the regulation of currentlyunregulated activities that could otherwise cause damage to sites (see 6.129 – 6.159 andsection 8 on the MMO).

Adaptive management

6.79 MCZs would be likely to be designated with a view to achieving nature conservationbenefits over long timescales. Sites, once established, would usually remain in place forthe long term. In addition to the nature conservation benefits, this is important inproviding stable conditions for marine businesses to plan their activities. Occasionally, theremay be a need to designate sites for a shorter period.

6.80 A balance will need to be struck between the benefits of stability and the need forflexibility to respond to changing circumstances. It is essential that MCZs can, individuallyor as part of a network, respond to changing environmental conditions and to the affectsthat climate change will have on our biodiversity.

6.81 To respond to such changes there is likely to be a need to redesign individual sites,reconsider the structure of any wider network of sites and to revisit conservationobjectives. The need for change may arise because:

• the feature for which the site is designated is no longer present or has moved;

• a site is no longer able to meet its objectives, for example as a result of changedenvironmental conditions;

81

y Where this relates to matters within Welsh and Northern Irish waters this would be done in conjunction with the relevantdevolved administration.


• new evidence or information shows that the site is no longer appropriate to achievethe role for which it was selected;

• our understanding of marine biodiversity and ecosystems has improved and objectivesneed to be updated to reflect this; or

• changes in a site as it recovers or in response to external factors such as climatechange mean new objectives are required.

6.82 We want to be able to de-designate sites, amend boundaries or alter objectives where thisis necessary due to environmental changes, new scientific information or other significantfactors. The majority of respondents to the 2006 consultation exercise agreed that thisapproach was appropriate.

6.83 Where site objectives are changed, it may be necessary to change the managementmeasures required to deliver them. The measures required to deliver objectives may alsochange over time as a result of other factors such as:

• pressures such as climate change making a site more vulnerable to the impacts ofhuman activities;

• a site improving its resilience to impacts as a result of successful recovery, which couldallow additional activities to take place without compromising the delivery of siteobjectives; and

• failure of initial measures to deliver the site objectives.

6.84 Full consultation would be needed on any changes to sites in the same way as for new sites.

6.85 We expect that proposals for changes to sites would usually come from the statutorynature conservation agencies who would also undertake consultations.

Overlapping sites

6.86 A number of sites have already been designated in the area that we propose MCZ powersto apply, for example Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in the inter-tidal area andmarine SACs in coastal waters.

6.87 We want to make sure that relevant bodies can work together to ensure that areas whereoverlap exists are managed in an integrated manner to deliver the maximum conservationbenefits. It may be useful in such cases for relevant bodies to work together to specify in amanagement scheme how different objectives relate.

6.88 Where a MCZ overlaps with a site designated under European law we would expect thatthe objectives of the European site take precedence.

Management schemes

6.89 Some MCZs may be located in areas where a lot of activity takes place, managed by anumber of bodies. The decisions of the different bodies might impact on the sitesobjectives individually or in combination. In such circumstances, there may be benefits inestablishing a management scheme for a site or a combination of sites.

82


83

6.90 The ability to establish management schemes might also be useful where sites overlap andhave different, potentially conflicting objectives. If any of the bodies involved in themanagement of a site consider it appropriate or helpful to establish a management planthey may. Where a plan is established, it should take account of any national marine planor sub-regional marine plans.

Repeal of MNRs

6.91 MCZs will provide a flexible mechanism to conserve nationally important species andhabitats. To avoid duplication, we propose to repeal the existing Marine Nature Reserveprovisions under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981z. This proposal received significantsupport in response to the 2006 consultation exercise.

6.92 Where by-laws have been made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to protectthese sites or European marine sites they may be revoked and replaced by new by-laws weintend to introduce (see 6.129 – 6.159).

Seaward limit of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Areas of SpecialScientific Interest

6.93 There is currently some uncertainty about the geographic scope of the terrestrial SSSIregime. We propose to set a standard limit to the scope of these at the lower edge of theintertidal area. This has yet to be determined but is likely to be either at Mean Low WaterSprings (MLWS) or at the limit of lowest astronomical tides.

6.94 There may be circumstances where it would be appropriate to extend the boundaries of aSSSI beyond this seaward limit (see case study below) and these will be set out in guidance.

Case study: Extending SSSIs below mean low water mark

Robin Hood Bay – Maw Wyke SSSI is currently notified to Mean Low Water Mark (MLWM).The interest of this site is geological, geomorphological and marine biological. The scientificinterest is the eroding cliffs, the rocky intertidal – and shallow sub-tidal zones.

The richest bits are on the lower shore and do not stop just inside the Laminaria digitata(kelp) zone – roughly where MLWM lies in this part of the country and the current seawardboundary of the SSSI. The scientific interest extends below this probably as far as, or just intothe L. hyperborean (kelp) zone.

The most appropriate seaward boundary of the SSSI would be the lower limit of the interestat the bottom of the L. digitata kelp zone. This has scientific justification, but it is also easilyrecognisable. Furthermore, any activities that require management are likely to come fromthe land (e.g. collecting at low water) and can be adequately managed using the SSSI-basedregulatory apparatus.

z Sections 36 and 37.


Offences

6.95 Where a site is damaged by activities that are in breach of a condition of a licence, afisheries rule or by-law, offenders could be prosecuted according to the offences andpenalties relevant to those regimes.

6.96 There may be cases where an activity has the potential to impact on a site but has notbeen foreseen and it is not possible to control its short-term impact using licensing,fisheries or by-law controls (see 6.132 below).

6.97 We therefore propose that a person should be guilty of an offence if they damage ordestroy any species or habitat or other feature, for which a site has been designated. The nature conservation agencies would provide guidance on activities likely to causedamage to the features within individual sites (see 6.54).

6.98 It will not be necessary for the damage to be shown to be intentional. However defenceswill apply where the person causing the damage can show:

• they were acting in accordance with the terms of a licence or other authorisationgranted by a public body;

• they were taking action in relation to an emergency; or

• they could demonstrate they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all duediligence to avoid damaging or destroying the features in a site.

Species Protection

Our vision for marine species

By 2020, we want viable populations in all UK regional seas of the most important marinespecies and plants.

We want to ensure sufficient populations of the most important marine species so that theyare resilient to human impacts and make a positive contribution to essential ecosystemgoods and services.

We want to:

• By 2010, introduce appropriate and proportionate measures to halt the rate of decline innationally important marine species and plants.

• By 2020, ensure sufficient measures are in place to conserve effectively marine speciesand plants.

6.99 UK waters contain up to half of the UK’s biodiversity, estimated at around 44,000 species.Our objective is to maintain viable populations of the most important marine species andplants in UK waters. We will do this by using proportionate and targeted measures thatare capable of addressing identified threats to the conservation status of important species(see 6.128).

84


6.100 Over 90% of respondents to the 2006 consultation exercise believed existing speciesprotection measures did not adequately address threats to the conservation of marinespecies and that this could be addressed by extending their geographic scope.

6.101 A report for Defra by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies at Hull Universityexamined the protection requirements of a representative range of species consideredvulnerable to human activities.56

6.102 It found that species are at risk from only two main pressures: either a loss of, ormodification to, habitat; or the removal of the species or its prey. The report concludedthat there are two fundamental approaches to the protection of species in the marineenvironment:

• control of certain damaging activities within the marine environment to protect thefunctioning of a habitat, physical attributes and food supply;

• restrictions on species being overexploited through direct target catch or continuousbycatch.

6.103 The report found that in the majority of cases these species could be adequatelyprotected through protected area measures or sectoral controls such as fisheriesmeasures. The exceptions were where the main impact on the species was collection (for example for the curio trade) and in relation to mobile species.

6.104 The work from Hull University did not demonstrate a good case for extending thegeographic scope of existing species protection measures, if area protection tools andexisting management tools were effectively applied.

Site based protection

6.105 Habitats provide the fundamental building blocks for marine wildlife. Damage ordestruction of the habitats on which species rely can have a significant impact on thecapacity of species to maintain viable populations. Maintaining good habitats will help toensure the long-term survival of marine species.

6.106 Our proposals in relation to MCZs will provide a powerful tool for improving theprotection available to marine species. We propose to use MCZs as our primary tool forprotecting:

• habitats which are important for maintaining viable populations of rare and threatenedmarine species;

• important aggregations of sedentary and sessile species (e.g. pink sea fans or erectsponges); and

• mobile species, where areas can be identified which are important for key life cyclestages, such as for rearing or breeding.

6.107 This will provide substantially more protection for more species than is currently availablebut it cannot provide protection in all areas at all times. Additional tools are needed,particularly to provide protection for highly mobile species.

85


86

Using sectoral tools

6.108 Sectoral tools can play a key role in protecting marine species (for example, by restrictingthe extent of activities using licensing or fisheries controls.

6.109 Bycatch of non-target species can have significant undesirable conservation impacts andwe wish to take steps to reduce and minimise it. However, conventional conservationoffences, such as in relation to killing or taking, do not provide effective tools to reduce oreliminate bycatch. This is because the comprehensive application of such measures acrossthe marine area could criminalise legitimate fishing activity. This does not reflect thesustainable development approach, which lies at the heart of all our policies. For suchoffences to be utilised and to avoid inappropriate side effects it is therefore necessary toapply defences for legitimate activities such as fishing. This is why the species offences inSections 9 and 10 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are constructed as they areand consequently inappropriate to control bycatch.

6.110 Nonetheless, we already have a wide range of tools that enable us to manage fishingactivities that impact on marine wildlife, including using closed areas and gear restrictions.Such measures are suited to reducing undesirable bycatch as they can be used on aflexible and localised basis. They have been used to good effect already as demonstratedby changes to net types over the years and the development of new equipment such asescape hatches in nets and pingers.

6.111 We propose improving sectoral controls to improve the sustainability of fishing activities(see section 7 on modernising marine fisheries management). We will identify how wecan make better use of gear restrictions and fisheries no take zones where fishing ishaving an adverse conservation impact. Beyond this, measures to control bycatch wouldhave to be sought through the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) by agreement of the EUFisheries Council.

6.112 Where fisheries are managed under the CFP the UK cannot unilaterally use fisheriesmeasures to protect species. We will work within Europe to ensure that fisheriesmanagement provides these species with appropriate protection.

Case study: Using fisheries tools – sharks, skates and rays

Sharks, skates and rays are particularly vulnerable to over-exploitation due to a combinationof large size, associated large offspring size, slow growth and late maturation.

There is evidence from a number of sources (including ICES and IUCN) that many sharkspecies are declining and under threat. Currently, the IUCN red list contains 44 shark speciesfor the North-East Atlantic of which nearly a quarter are considered Vulnerable orEndangered. Trends on all species were either uncertain or downward.

Angel shark is now locally extinct in the Irish Sea and English Channel, the common skatewas made locally extinct in the Irish Sea and North Sea in the 1980’s, whilst four other skatespecies have suffered severe declines. Anecdotally, catches of the Shark Angling Club ofGreat Britain have dropped from 3000 to 86 sharks a season.

Current threats to sharks arise almost exclusively from targeted fisheries and bycatch. Spainalone is responsible for nearly half the EU catch total of 115,000 metric tons.

We cannot unilaterally enforce national conservation measures against foreign fisheries, so wemust work through the CFP to address the threats to species such as sharks, skates and rays.


6.113 Impacts arising from development and extractive activities other than fishing can also haveconservation impacts on marine species. The UK marine policy statement will set thecontext for decisions in the marine environment (see section 4). Licensing decisions will bemade in the context of the UK marine policy statement and any marine plans which willinclude explanation of our marine biodiversity objectives.

6.114 We propose that decisions taken under the licensing regimes take account of ourbiodiversity objectives to minimise impacts arising from development activity. This could bethrough, for example, licence conditions relating to development noise, or timing ofdevelopment in relation to sensitive species or particular construction methods.

Case study: Using licensing tools – seismic testing

To assess the likelihood of oil or gas reserves underneath the seabed the oil and gas industryuse seismic survey techniques.

The noise generated by this technique can cause disturbance to cetaceans and other marinemammals. To address this, the JNCC produced guidelines to help minimise the impacts fromseismic survey.

When licences are issued by DTI for oil and gas survey the use of JNCC guidelines is astandard condition of licence.

Using existing conservation tools

6.115 Marine species of conservation importance are provided protection from a range ofimpacts under current legislation. The most important currently available measures areoutlined in Table 4.

6.116 For nationally important species, this protection extends to the seaward limit of territorialwaters. For species of European importance (i.e. dolphins, porpoises and whales, commonsturgeon and marine turtles) it extends throughout the waters over which the UKexercises jurisdiction.

6.117 Threats from fisheries and development activities can be adequately controlled throughthe proposed revisions to existing regimes. In combination, these measures alongside thetraditional and new conservation measures introduced through the Bill will provide astrong set of tools to protect our important marine species.

6.118 We will consider where better use can be made of existing conservation offences. Forexample, offences relating to possession or sale of protected species, such as provided bySection 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, have the potential to preventtargeted exploitation of vulnerable species. They can usefully support measures aimed atreturning incidentally caught species to the sea where there is a reasonable chance ofmore robust species surviving.

6.119 Responses to the 2006 consultation document did not identify any threats to marinespecies that could be addressed by extending the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981beyond territorial waters or that could not be more effectively addressed through sectoralor other controls.

87


6.120 In view of these factors, we do not propose to introduce changes to the existing speciesprotection legislation for territorial waters provided by the Wildlife and Countryside Act1981.

Case study: Using existing conservation tools – seahorses

Seahorses are found in seagrass beds and kelp forests around the UK coast. Their numbersare in decline, and they are widely dispersed. The main threat faced by the species is fromhabitat destruction and collection and sale for the curio and aquarium trade.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is capable of providing very effective protection forspecies such as the seahorse making it an offence to possess or sell listed species. Thisapproach, alongside protection of appropriate areas of habitat in MCZs, will provide anappropriate level of species protection.

Two species of seahorse (short-snouted and spiny) have been proposed for listing forprotection by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

6.121 Outside territorial waters, the only significant conservation threats are those that wouldbe better dealt with using sectoral controls, e.g. bycatch. The one identified exception tothis is the impact of disturbance on the basking shark (which is provided protection fromdisturbance within territorial waters by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981).

6.122 To address cases such as this we will explore the possibility of adding nationally importantmarine species, such as the basking shark, to the list of European protected species underthe Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 2007, which weredesigned specifically to work in the offshore environment.

Reviewing current protection

6.123 Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 list the animals and plantsthat are protected by specific provisions of the Act. These schedules include a number ofmarine species and the protection provided relates in general terms to the killing, injuring,taking and selling of the plants and animals listed.

6.124 There are 29 individual marine Species Action Plans and six grouped marine species plans(covering another 51 species) that identify the actions required to conserve importantmarine species. The existing plans are currently under review in order to reflect updatedinformation on the current status of marine species.

6.125 We will undertake an assessment of whether the protective measures provided by theWildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and identified by marine Species Action Plans are themost appropriate and effective conservation tools for these species based on the threatsthey face. This will include a review of the marine species and plants on the schedules tothis legislation. This will take into account the work already undertaken by JNCC onidentifying nationally important marine species and habitats.

88


89

Using by-laws

6.126 Work by Hull University identified that in coastal areas unregulated activities (such asrecreation and tourism) have the potential to impact on rare and threatened speciesthrough, for example, ad hoc or commercial wildlife watching, and disturbance tobreeding or resting sites from water-based recreational activities.19

6.127 To minimise those impacts we propose to introduce new by-law making powers to controlunregulated activities having an impact on the conservation status of mobile species (see6.129 – 6.159).

6.128 By-laws are an effective tool for providing targeted and proportionate measures toaddress impacts on biodiversity. Seasonal by-laws are likely to be particularly effectiveproviding seasonal protection for important breeding and spawning areas for wideranging species such as basking shark.

Control of unregulated activities6.129 We wish to ensure that we can control activities that have a significant impact on the

achievement of MCZ objectives or on the conservation status of important marine species.Licensing and fisheries controls already address the most significant impacts but there area number of unregulated activities that have the potential to cause damage.

6.130 Studies for Defra by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies of Hull University19

assessed activities considered to have adverse conservation impacts in terms of the riskthey present:

• high – bait digging / collection, water-based recreation and unlicensed commercialfishing activities;

• medium – unlicensed dredging, wildlife watching / ecotourism, recreational fishing, land-based recreation; and

• low – diving, military activities,aa hovercraft, education and research, low flying aircraft.

6.131 These activities are usually very localised and vary significantly in their potential impacts.Impacts arising from such activities are therefore most appropriately dealt with at the locallevel where the most relevant knowledge and expertise can be brought to bear.

By-law making powersbb

6.132 Of the activities identified above, amendments to existing fisheries and licensing controlswill address impacts arising from bait digging / collection, unregulated fisheries,recreational fishing, and unlicensed dredging.

6.133 The work by Hull University demonstrated that the other impacts that we need to addressare those arising from recreational and tourism-related activities.

aa Although military activities were included in the consultants report, we do not consider them to be unregulated. They are nottherefore included within this analysis and would not be covered by the proposed mechanisms.

bb Consideration will be given to whether a by-law making power is the most appropriate mechanism for use in Welsh andNorthern Irish waters.


6.134 We therefore propose to introduce a power for the MMO to make by-laws to control theimpact of such unregulated activities on MCZs and important marine species. We proposethat they will be used to control activities:

• that are having, or are likely to have, a damaging impact on designated and potentialMPAs, including MCZs or marine SACs and SPAs;

• that are having or are likely to have damaging effects on the features for whichmarine protected areas are designated;

• that are preventing, or are likely to prevent a marine protected area from meeting itsobjectives; and

• that are having, or have the potential to have, a negative impact on the effectiveconservation of important marine species.

6.135 The proposal to use by-laws to control unregulated activities received broad support fromrespondents to the 2006 consultation exercise. Respondents thought that by-laws shouldbe capable of wider application than just to marine protected areas.

6.136 By-laws are a very effective regulatory control providing clarity and certainty to individuals.They make clear what is, or is not, permitted in specified areas and / or at specified times,for example by excluding specified activities or introducing restrictions such as speedlimits. They can:

• apply for a specific season or period of time;

• apply over a specific area; and

• enable control of an activity/impact to a level that is not damaging.

6.137 We propose that by-laws may be applied to control unregulated activities, wherever theyoccur, when it can be demonstrated that they have a significant impact on achievementof a MCZ’s objectives or on the conservation status of an important marine species. Theyshould be used to control specified activities in a specified manner. For example, byexcluding activities such as anchoring from specified areas to minimise damage to benthichabitats and by applying speed limits to reduce noise impacts.

6.138 These controls would be introduced in cases where voluntary measures were insufficientto prevent unregulated activities from causing significant damage to protected areas,areas under consideration for designation as protected areas, or mobile marine species atkey life stages.

6.139 However, by-laws for unregulated activities should not be used where other controls, suchas those to manage fisheries, exist and can be used to control damaging impacts. Ineffect this means that by-laws are only likely to be appropriate to control recreational andtourism-related activities, and possibly educational and research activities.

6.140 It is likely that the need for action will be identified by the statutory nature conservationagencies. The MMO would then use its regulatory expertise to:

• consider the need for action in the context of the UK marine policy statement and themarine plans that implement it;

• determine the most appropriate measures to control activities;

90


91

• develop appropriate by-laws or interim measures; and

• enforce the resulting measures.

Role of voluntary measures

6.141 Many recreational activities are overseen by clubs that have introduced voluntarymechanisms such as codes of conduct to manage impacts. These have often provedsuccessful and in view of this, efforts should always be made to make the best use ofvoluntary measures before introducing by-laws. Where it can be demonstrated that thereare still significant impacts or risks of impacts despite the presence of voluntary measures,or those voluntary measures are unlikely to be effective, by-laws should be considered.

6.142 Voluntary mechanisms often fail as a result of the actions of just a few individuals within acommunity. We do not expect the introduction of by-laws to affect those already acting inaccordance with voluntary agreements.

Case study: The role of voluntary measures – anchoring in the Helford Estuary

In the Helford Estuary in Cornwall, areas of seagrass habitat were being damaged by theanchors of visiting yachts – the bay was a popular lunch stop for day sailing.

Since the area is marked on Admiralty charts as an anchorage, and there is no statutoryharbour authority for the area, a voluntary approach to control anchoring was developed.Warning buoys with signs have been placed at the seaward limit of the seagrass, requestingyachts to anchor outside the buoyed area. Postcards with the area marked on an aerialphotograph and an explanation of the impacts have also been widely circulated in localyacht clubs.

The voluntary approach has been extremely successful, with self-policing and generally highcompliance.

Consultation

6.143 Where the need for a by-law is identified for an established MCZ or for the purposes ofspecies conservation, the consultation process outlined for MCZs would be followed (see6.52 – 6.56).

6.144 Stakeholders the MMO will be expected to consult in preparing by-laws include:

• affected businesses, sectors and those with an interest in an area proposed for a by-law (in as far as these can be identified);

• the statutory conservation agencies; and

• any bodies or organisations involved in managing activities within an area proposed for a by-law.


6.145 As with MCZs, we would expect that a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) identifyingthe likely costs and benefits accompany proposals for the introduction of new by-laws.

6.146 When a site is under consideration for designation as a MCZ we propose that anyproposed management measures, including by-laws, should wherever possible form partof the consultation exercise.

Licensing mechanism

6.147 In the marine environment, it is often the case that it is only above a certain level that anactivity will have a damaging effect on a site or feature of conservation interest. It maynot, therefore, be necessary in all cases to exclude the full extent of recreational, tourist orother activity from an area to ensure that a significant impact on a site or feature isremoved. It is important, therefore, that the by-law provision enables the control of thelevel of an activity rather than simply banning it outright, allowing a limited amount ofactivity to continue to take place.

6.148 For example, where whale watching tours operate in large numbers they may impact onlocal biodiversity. Rather than exclude all tour operators from an area it may be moreappropriate to limit the number of operators, and hence their impact, in an area at anyone time.

6.149 To ensure we can take a proportionate approach to managing activities in areas coveredby by-laws, we propose that licences should permit activities to continue to the extentthat they do not cause inappropriate impacts. We will consider opportunities for costrecovery in any licensing scheme that is set up.

Confirmation of by-laws

6.150 The power to confirm by-laws will rest with the Secretary of State (or where appropriatethe devolved administration). This will provide the opportunity to consider anyoutstanding unresolved issues and to verify that alternative management approaches havebeen properly considered.

Interim measures

6.151 Although we plan to speed up the by-law making process it can currently take 12 monthsor more to go through the full procedure for adopting new by-laws. This could result inunacceptable conservation impacts occurring before suitable by-law or site-based controlscan be put in place.

6.152 To address the potential risk caused by the length of time it takes to make and introducea by-law we propose that the MMO will be able to introduce interim measures to controlunregulated activities at short notice.

6.153 Interim measures will be used to manage the same activities as by-laws (see 6.134). Thecircumstances under which it would be appropriate to do so would include cases wherenew information demonstrates that significant damage is occurring or imminent as the

92


result of an unregulated activity or where a new site is identified which is at particularrisk. These measures would only be applied to:

• a designated MCZ or European marine site;

• a proposed MCZ or European marine site; and

• a nationally important marine species.

6.154 We propose that this could be used immediately a threat is recognised but would belimited to a maximum of six months duration. This could be extended a further sixmonths but would only generally be done where it can be demonstrated that action isbeing taken to introduce more appropriate by-law or site-based controls.

6.155 Interim measures should only be used where voluntary measures are inappropriate orineffective and where no other controls exist that can control the impact. Some essentialprocedural safeguards would be built into the system to ensure that interim measuresintroduced are necessary, proportionate and well formulated.

6.156 Where the rights of an individual are affected by the introduction of interim measures wepropose that they be entitled to appeal. Restrictions could be revoked or amended shouldthe appeal be successful.

6.157 The MMO would keep the need for interim protection under review and would have theability to amend or revoke measures where circumstances required it.

Duty to make by-laws and use interim measures

6.158 We propose that all public bodies will be required to ensure that appropriatemanagement measures are put in place on MCZs to deliver site objectives. They will needto ensure that activities requiring their permission are only permitted where they do nothave a significant negative impact on the achievement of a site’s objectives.

6.159 The MMO will need to ensure by-laws are in place to control recreational, tourist andother unregulated activities where they are having, or are likely to have, a significantimpact on the achievement of MCZ objectives. This duty will also apply to the making ofby-laws for the purposes of species protection and in relation to interim measures.

Enforcement6.160 We want to ensure that all current and new conservation management arrangements,

including those introduced by the Marine Bill, can be effectively enforced.

6.161 A range of bodies have enforcement responsibilities in UK waters but none have the fullrange of powers, responsibilities and capabilities to effectively enforce new and existingnature conservation legislation. Research has indicated that the current arrangements canoften result in complexity and confusion.53

6.162 To rationalise, simplify and strengthen enforcement arrangements in the marine area wepropose to give the new MMO responsibility for the enforcement of nature conservation

93


legislation in UK offshore waters, territorial waters adjacent to England, and internalwaters in England (see section 8). This section relates to nature conservation functions inthose areas only.

6.163 We propose to develop an integrated, modernised and effective suite of enforcementpowers that can be used for nature conservation offences.

6.164 Other legislative regimes such as marine licensing and fisheries powers contribute to theconservation of marine species and habitats. These would complement the marine natureconservation functions discussed here.

6.165 Enforcement officers would have powers to carry out all stages of enforcement of marinenature conservation legislation including:

• crime prevention, education and awareness raising;

• compliance monitoring;

• enforcement action;

• evidence gathering; and

• prosecution of offences.

6.166 In addition, we propose to establish new powers for the Secretary of State to change theorganisational arrangements for marine nature conservation enforcement and to appointand empower additional enforcement officers. This would provide the flexibility torespond to future changes in enforcement needs.

Police liaison

6.167 The MMO would develop a clear working relationship with the Police, who would alsoretain their ability to enforce wildlife crime in the marine area.

6.168 Although the MMO would generally seek to handle enforcement cases on their own tominimise pressures on Police resources, the Police will have powers and expertise that arenot available to the MMO. In a limited number of cases, it is likely that it would benecessary to seek to refer cases to them, for instance where it is necessary to arrest anoffender, or where detention of an offender is required following refusal to provide proofof identify.

6.169 There may be circumstances where wildlife offences in the marine area fall outside of theexpertise of the MMO, for instance the illegal trade by ship of protected species.Enforcement of these offences generally requires a high level of knowledge and expertise,perhaps with the attendance of a veterinary surgeon. In these instances, they wouldescort the vessel to a convenient port and refer the case to the most appropriateenforcing body (e.g. Police or other specialist enforcement agents such as Customs orWildlife Inspectors).

94

cc We are working with the devolved administrations to assess the most appropriate way of ensuring effective enforcement inwaters over which they exercise responsibility.


95

6.170 Defra, the devolved administrations and the countryside agencies already work closelywith the Police to combat wildlife crime (for example the Partnership for Action AgainstWildlife Crime). These arrangements would continue and develop in light of changes tolegislative powers.

Co-operative working

6.171 There would be some circumstances where other enforcement bodies are better placed toenforce nature conservation legislation in particular sea areas, because they have greaterlocal presence, capability or expertise.

6.172 This is likely to be the case in the inshore area where controls on unregulated activitieswould be most likely to be introduced, but the MMO would lack the capacity to providean effective enforcement presence.

6.173 Bodies such as the SFCs, Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), the EnvironmentAgency, and Port and Harbour Authorities may have capacity to take on an enforcementrole in inshore waters.

6.174 We propose to enable the MMO to enter into agreements with other enforcement bodiesto undertake enforcement in specified locations and for specified purposes. The MMOwould be able to provide officers within the relevant organisation with the necessarypowers to undertake these functions.

Powers and functions

6.175 We propose to equip enforcement officers within the MMO with a suitable suite ofpowers for the enforcement of marine nature conservation legislation.

6.176 The basic powers would be similar to those used by British Sea Fisheries Officers (BSFO),which are being modernised as set out in section 7 and which will also be used for natureconservation enforcement under the Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations 2007:

• Stop and search individuals and vessels. Enforcement officers would have the ability torequire a vessel to stop and do anything that will facilitate the boarding of the vessel bythe officer in order to ascertain whether an offence is being or has been committed.

• Seize and detain vessels and or items for evidence. If they believe there are reasonablegrounds for believing that an offence has been committed, an enforcement officercould require the master or person in charge to take it and its crew to the nearestmost convenient port or landing area and detain, or require the master or otherperson in charge to detain (for the purpose of evidence gathering) the vessel in port orat such landing area. Once detained, enforcement officers would have the power toseize and detain items that might be evidence of the commission of the offence ormay be liable to forfeiture by a court.

• Board, enter and inspect vessels. Enforcement officers would be able, at all reasonablehours, to stop, board, search and inspect any vessel within British fishery limits or anyoffshore marine installation or person, or any British vessel within the UK ContinentalShelf in order to ascertain whether an offence is being or has been committed on orfrom the vessel or offshore marine installation.


• Make enquiries and examine things. In order to find out whether an offence has beenor is being committed, enforcement officers would have the power to make anyinquiry of any person or examine anything there.

• Take specimens or samples. Enforcement officers would have the ability to require anyperson on the vessel, offshore marine installation or at the premises, who has aspecimen in his possession or control to make it available for inspection by him.

• Require documentation and take photographs. To ascertain whether an offence hasbeen or is being committed, enforcement officers would be able to require any personon the vessel, offshore marine installation or at any premises or vehicle, to produceany document which is in his possession or control and may take copies of any suchdocument, and take photographs of anything he believes is evidence of an offence.

6.177 New powers would be required to enable enforcement officers to carry out some of theroles set out above. These include:

• Issue and recover penalties. Enforcement officers would have the power to issue fixedpenalty notices to persons committing a conservation offence.

• Delegation of functions/Cross warranting. The MMO would have the power todelegate specific enforcement powers and functions to other bodies and to warrantindividual officers within those bodies with the powers necessary to enforceconservation provisions within their area.

Enforcement toolkit

6.178 We propose that the following sanctions will be made available when a conservationoffence has been committed:

• Fixed penalties. Where an offence has been committed under the proposed natureconservation by-laws the MMO will able to issue a fixed penalty notice. A fixed penaltysystem would avoid disproportionately criminalising activities and the need for lengthyand costly court intervention. Fixed penalties will apply where minimal evidence isrequired. They would only apply to offences where evidence of commission of theoffence is available at the point of detection. The level of penalty will reflect theseriousness of the offence but offer sufficient incentive for the offender to pay ratherthan go to court.

• Fines. Where a case is taken to court we propose that in the first instance it is dealtwith by the Magistrates’ court which will have the power to issue fines on conviction.We would expect those undertaking commercial operations and making profit frombreaching by-laws to be subject to more substantial fines.

• Confiscation of assets. The MMO will be given the power to confiscate assets used inthe commission of an offence. The court will be able to order forfeiture of any assets,including profits gained during the commission of an offence.

• Custodial sentences. Where other enforcement measures have been tried and in thecase of the most serious persistent offenders, we propose that the court is able toimpose custodial sentences of up to two years on offenders.

96


6.179 In addition, where an activity results in damage to a MCZ, the MMO would be able todemand that the offender undertake remedial action. Where someone fails to remediatedamage, the MMO may take steps to undertake remedial operations and recover itsexpenses of doing so from the person who carried out the unlawful activity in question.

6.180 In determining which sanctions should apply to an offender it is important to ensure that abalance is struck between the capacity of an offender to pay, the damage they have caused,and the benefit they may have accrued from the illegal activity. This determination will restwith the MMO as enforcing body, or the courts if a case progresses to that stage. We wouldexpect the MMO and/or the courts to consider the severity of the sentence in comparisonwith similar offences under, for example, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

6.181 None of the offences outlined in this section will apply to:

• a public body acting in the exercise of its functions;

• any activities contributing to national security and defence;

• the Secretary of State or relevant devolved administration or anyone acting on theirbehalf and in accordance with their functions; and

• any activities governed by European or international law where the UK does notexercise competence, such as fishing activities governed by the CFP.

6.182 Penalties relating to other offences are outlined in the relevant sections of the WhitePaper.

97


98

Our Aim

To strengthen fisheries and environmental management arrangements so that more effectiveaction can be taken to conserve marine ecosystems and help achieve a sustainable andprofitable fisheries sector.

Summary of our proposals7.1 In this section of the White Paper we set out proposals that will:

• modernise inshore fisheries and environmental management arrangements byestablishing a clear purpose and duties for Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) in England.We will also improve their evidence-based decision-making; update their by-lawmaking and enforcement powers and enhance their funding arrangements;

• strengthen the operation of Several and Regulating Orders used to establish andmaintain local shellfisheries by removing some of the disincentives to applying forOrders and by making practical improvements to the way they operate;

• enable a more active approach to managing recreational and unregulated fishingactivities through new powers to introduce a chargeable rod licence as well asmeasures to set catch limits and to regulate fishing undertaken from the shore; and

• update and strengthen enforcement powers including improved powers to tackleIllegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, implement a system of administrativepenalties for minor offending in the commercial sector; and ensure that we can use ourexisting vessel licence charging powers to recover the costs of licence administrationmore flexibly than is currently possible.

7.2 Regulation of fisheries is a function devolved to each of the four fisheries administrationsin the UK. Our proposals on managing marine fisheries apply in relation to England and,where indicated in each of the sections below, in relation to Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Issues

7.3 Fishing is one of the many activities that take place in the marine environment. It providesimportant socio-economic benefits, especially to coastal communities, as well as a valuableand nutritious food source. However, there is an environmental impact and some fishingactivities threaten the integrity of the marine environment, including the long-termsustainability of fish stocks. Delivering environmentally and economically sustainablefisheries is an integral component of achieving the Government’s overarching marine visionof “clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas” and achievingthe right balance between socio-economic benefits and environmental costs is essential.

7.4 The fisheries sector in the UK is extremely diverse and for the most part is subject toextensive regulation. Through our proposals we are seeking to strengthen, and simplifywhere possible, existing regulation to improve the environmental and economicsustainability of fishing activities. We believe that there is a positive future for the fisheriessector and whilst there is still much to do to realise the aim that was set out in ‘Securingthe Benefits’13 the Marine Bill will play an important part in progressing this agenda.

7. Modernising marine fisheries management

7.5 Our proposals for managing marine fisheries cannot stand on their own and must meshwith our intentions for managing other human activities in the marine environmentthrough a system of marine planning, modernised marine licensing and strengthenedmarine nature conservation. Taken together our proposals will provide the tools toinfluence human activities in the marine environment in a more holistic and strategic way.

Regulating Better

7.6 As part of the Government’s wider agenda for regulating better we are committed to thesimplification of fisheries legislation and the reduction of the administrative burdens thatthis places upon the fishing industry. There are a number of ways that we propose todeliver this. We intend to:

• streamline a range of legislation covering fisheries and bring wider benefits includingmaking fisheries legislation more transparent, comprehensible and accessible tofishermen, regulators and others operating in the marine environment. It will help toensure provisions are up-to-date and compensate for the quantity of new fisherieslegislation;

• introduce a number of new requirements that will help our delivery bodies regulatebetter;

• overhaul, modernise and simplify the Victorian legislation on which SFCs operate. Thiswill include new requirements to undertake full consultation and carry out cost benefitanalysis of proposed by-laws through the use of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs);

• pursue improvements to legislation underpinning Several and Regulating Orders forshellfisheries including clarifying the powers of grantees and making enforcement moreeffective;

• modernise, rationalise and streamline fishery officers’ enforcement powers; and

• offer financial administrative penalties for minor fisheries offending, as an alternative totaking such matters to criminal courts.

Consultation

7.7 We signalled our intention in the last consultation on a Marine Bill to pursue the abovemeasures. Respondents were supportive of our ideas and we have listened to their viewsand those of other stakeholders in shaping this package of measures. We have alsoundertaken a number of targeted consultations and held meetings with the fishingindustry, angling sector and others as we developed our policy proposals.

Sea Fisheries Committees in England

Introduction

7.8 Our coastal waters support varied and productive ecosystems that sustain extensive fishingindustries as well as tourism, angling, diving, boating and other activities. We want toconserve these ecosystems to provide rich resources today and for future generations.

99


Human activities pose the biggest threat to them, most acutely in our inshore waters(generally within six nautical miles of the coastline) where there is greatest interactionbetween man and the marine environment.

7.9 There is a wide range of inshore fishing activities taking place around our coasts. These areoften characterised by fishing vessels of less than 10 metres in length making day tripsfrom local fishing ports. These vessels often leave harbour early in the morning andengage in trawling, netting and lining for a variety of fish species including cod, plaice,sole, bass, sprat, herring and mackerel. There are also extensive shellfisheries such as thosefor crabs, lobsters and scallops using pots, creels and dredges. Fisheries exploited by handgatherers operating in the inter-tidal zone for species such as mussels and cockles arecommon in some coastal areas.

7.10 Inshore fisheries management in England is the responsibility of SFCs. They were originallyestablished in the 19th century through the Sea Fisheries (Regulation) Act 1888, sinceconsolidated in the Sea Fisheries (Regulation) Act 1966. The Committees can make by-laws for the management and conservation of their districts’ fisheries and enforce somenational and EC fisheries legislation. Their original purpose has been extended to enablethem to regulate fishing activity on wider environmental grounds, such as for theprotection of sensitive reefs from fishing activity, as well as for stock conservation. Incertain coastal waters and estuaries, the Environment Agency (EA) has the powers of anSFC. Local control and stakeholder involvement in SFCs is a critical factor. This is achievedby appointing to SFCs people knowledgeable about the fishing industry and other relevantinterests (e.g. recreational sea angling) as well as through local input to proposed by-laws.

7.11 Defra Minister, Ben Bradshaw announced on 20 June 2006 the reform of SFCs in Englandthrough the Marine Bill. This was in response to a number of reviews of inshore fisheriesand environmental management.2, 9, dd Those reviews considered options for strengtheningmanagement arrangements, including abolition of SFCs, and suggested that any newdelivery structure should have a strong regional/local base with the full involvement ofstakeholders. An enhanced role in the protection of the wider marine environment wasalso suggested, as well as greater involvement of recreational sea anglers in managementdecisions.

7.12 The challenges of inshore fisheries and environmental management often relate toconditions in very local areas such as an individual bay or estuary and require localsolutions. Local input to decision-making and local accountability that flows from theirstatus is a key strength of SFCs and means they are able to get to the root of thesechallenges and to negotiate practical solutions. These factors weighed heavily in thedecision to retain and reform SFCs, which is consistent with the broader thrust ofGovernment policy to devolve more responsibility to local people. The SFC model was theoption preferred by respondents from across the spectrum of stakeholders whocommented on the 2006 Marine Bill consultation.

7.13 Retaining a strong regional focus supports the increased emphasis of the reformedcommon fisheries policy on local management responsibility through Regional AdvisoryCouncils or regional fisheries managers.

100


dd The Inshore Fisheries Working Group Report presented to Defra ministers in March 2005.

7.14 We have developed a package of reform measures to ensure that SFCs can deliver theirresponsibilities effectively and in line with good regulatory practice. We are also makingproposals in response to arguments for consolidation of the number of organisationsdelivering fisheries management.

Summary of our proposals

7.15 Under our proposals, we will equip SFCs to deliver a fully effective management service fitfor the 21st Century. In particular we plan to:

• provide SFCs with a clearly defined purpose and duties;

• modernise their outdated by-law making and enforcement powers;

• further delegate local management matters currently delivered by Defra to SFCs;

• put SFCs on a firm legal footing and address problems with their funding;

• increase their accountability;

• improve their evidence-based decision-making and introduce requirements for RIA; and

• streamline management responsibilities currently performed by SFCs, the MarineFisheries Agency (MFA) and the EA in the inshore zone, and provide for closer workingbetween these and other organisations.

7.16 Taken together this will ensure SFCs play an effective role in delivering conservation andsustainable management of the marine environment.

Geographic scope

7.17 These proposals apply in relation to SFCs in England. SFCs in Wales are the responsibilityof the Welsh Assembly Government, which announced in September 2006 that it is toconsult on proposals to take full responsibility for fisheries management in relation toWales. Defra, Welsh Assembly Government and other interested parties are workingtogether closely to ensure that the new arrangements in relation to both England andWales can work effectively alongside each other.

Detailed proposals

Purpose and duties

7.18 Legislation underpinning SFCs does not establish a clearly defined purpose. This meansthat SFCs are not clear about the precise scope of their responsibilities and in someinstances have not taken action in situations where they are empowered but arguablyhave not been required to do so. In these cases, Defra has needed to act on matters thatwe believe would be better resolved at a local level by SFCs. The absence of a clearlydefined purpose also creates difficulties for SFCs when negotiating the levy with theirconstituent local authorities because the scope of activities needing funding is not clear.

7.19 We intend the core purpose of SFCs to be the sustainable management of fish stocks inthe marine environment through an ecosystem-based approach. Their focus will remain

101


102

firmly on fisheries activities and their impact on the marine ecosystem. In particular, SFCsshould:

• sustainably manage fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems, having due regard to aprecautionary approach;

• maintain and, where necessary, actively contribute to the rebuilding of living aquaticresources and their supporting ecosystems, thereby enabling sustainable exploitation; and

• optimise the social and economic benefits derived from living aquatic resources whilstensuring their long-term sustainability.

7.20 We propose duties on SFCs, including those to:

• take timely management action (e.g. to introduce a by-law or other measure) inpursuance of their core purpose;

• undertake appropriate monitoring and enforcement of fisheries and marineenvironmental legislation; and

• collect data relating to fisheries and the impact of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem consistent with an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.

Constitution and governance

7.21 SFCs and their districts are established only upon application by local authorities. This hasled to funding difficulties and gaps in coverage around our coasts, where constituentauthorities have withdrawn support for their local SFC. This could lead to the possibility ofestablished SFCs disbanding themselves, leaving inshore fisheries unmanaged.

7.22 We intend to remove the permissive nature of local authority engagement. We plan torequire all upper and single tier authorities with a sea or estuary coastline (tidal waters) toparticipate in and contribute to the running of its local SFC(s). We will also clarify thestatus of SFCs to enable them to charge for services undertaken on behalf of anotherauthority, keep receipts and assign ownership of capital assets.

7.23 The membership of each SFC is 50% local authority members (upper and single tierauthorities), one member from the EA, and the balance appointed by the Secretary ofState for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as able to represent local fisheries interestsor having knowledge of local marine environmental matters. Appointments by theSecretary of State last for four years and are typically chosen to ensure geographicalcoverage and according to their experience of different types of fisheries and marineinterests (e.g. potting, angling, trawling, aquaculture, etc.).

7.24 A SFC may appoint one or more further members with knowledge of or expertise inmarine environmental matters for those occasions when it is considering any proposed by-law for marine environmental purposes or any proposed amendment or revocation ofany such by-laws. The local District Inspector of the MFA is normally invited to Committeemeetings as an observer.


7.25 We intend to improve the operation of SFCs through the following changes to theirmembership:

• Local authority membership – The strength of SFCs as managers of coastal fisheriesdepends on the involvement of local fisheries and environmental interests. We wish toreinforce this, but for the Committees to remain a manageable size local authoritymembership must be reduced. We propose to reduce the proportion of local authoritymembers from one half to one third. To enable local authorities to retain control overtheir funding contribution we intend that votes concerning the levy will be restricted tolocal authority members.

• Natural England (NE) membership – SFCs are required to manage the impact of fishingactivity on the wider marine environment. This requires specialist knowledge and skills, which NE can bring to each Committee. We intend that NE will have one seat oneach SFC.

• Marine Management Organisation (MMO) membership – SFCs work closely with theMFA to ensure a joined-up approach to monitoring and enforcement; to make best use of expensive capital assets (e.g. patrol vessels); and to share best practice andexperience. We will strengthen this working relationship by allocating the MFA a seaton each Committee. Because the functions currently performed by the MFA will betransferred to the new MMO, the seat will be assigned to the MMO.

7.26 Some SFCs currently have over 30 members. This can hinder decision-making and makefor cumbersome operation. There is a risk the problem will be exacerbated if, in future,there are fewer, larger SFCs. We therefore propose that Committees should comprise atotal of 15 members. This would provide for a maximum of five seats for local authorities.In cases where there are more or less than five constituent local authorities, seats shall beawarded proportionately according to the length of coastline (and therefore fundingcontribution) of each authority. We propose that the balance of the membership shouldcomprise one member from the EA, 1 from NE, 1 from the MMO and 7 from the fishingindustry, anglers, conservation bodies and other relevant interests.

Table 5: Proposed SFC membership structure

Voting members No. of seats

Local authorities (upper and single tier) 5

Marine Management Organisation 1

Environment Agency 1

Natural England 1

Fisheries, angling and other relevant interests 7

Total 15

7.27 At present, the Secretary of State appoints a proportion of SFC members, those withfisheries, angling and other relevant interests. We intend to transfer this task to the MMO.Bringing the MMO and SFCs together in this way will help foster closer workingrelationships between the two organisations. It would also distance Defra from mattersthat should rightly be dealt with at an operational level. To ensure a balancedrepresentation of interests, we intend to establish a clear framework under which

103


104

appointments must be made, providing as much flexibility as possible so that themembership structure could be amended in light of experience. Local authorities, the EAand NE will appoint their own members.

7.28 We propose that appointments should be made in line with the Commissioner for PublicAppointments ‘Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies’1 to ensuretransparent, consistent and fair appointments procedures.

7.29 In accordance with a code of conduct required by the Local Government Act 2000 (LGA2000), members of SFCs appointed by the Secretary of State are able to debate atCommittee but must not vote on items where they may directly benefit from the decisionof the Committee. There is an anomaly where Secretary of State appointees to Committeescomprising more than one constituent council are not bound by the requirements of theLGA 2000. We propose that all SFCs will be covered by the LGA 2000.

7.30 The Association of Sea Fisheries Committees (ASFC) performs some coordination of SFCsand their work. The ASFC was established on a voluntary basis some years ago andundertakes such tasks as replying on behalf of all SFCs to national consultation exercisesand representing SFC interests. The ASFC’s function could be enhanced to include worksuch as promoting consistency in by-laws; promulgating best practice; negotiating theprovision of services for the benefit of all SFCs; and coordinating recruitment and trainingprogrammes.

7.31 We believe effective coordination would bring real benefits to the operation of all SFCsand where SFCs choose to enhance the role currently performed by the ASFC we willensure all reasonable costs are met from the general expenses of the Committees.

By-laws

Making by-laws

7.32 We intend to enhance the by-law making process currently set out in the Sea Fisheries(Regulation) Act 1966 and in the Sea Fisheries (By-laws) Regulations 1985 so that they aremade in accordance with good regulation principles. The key change will be a requirementfor SFCs to consult fully on proposed by-laws, including consultation with the EA, NE,neighbouring SFC(s) and the MMO. An RIAee must accompany the consultation in order toencourage a more rigorous approach to assessing the cost and benefits of proposedmeasures.

7.33 We also want SFCs to be able to introduce interim measures at short notice in particularcircumstances. These could be used to prevent, stop or introduce restrictions on adamaging activity (e.g. to regulate a new type of destructive fishing gear or to regulate along-standing practice in the light of new information). In these circumstances, SFCswould not be required to go through the full procedure for adopting new by-laws.This would remove a current barrier to SFC’s acting effectively to address, for example,threats from fishing activity to sites such as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs).

ee http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/ria/overview/the_ria_process.asp


7.34 Interim measures would be exercisable immediately, but with safeguards. The measurewould be time limited applying for an initial period of up to 6 months, extendable for amaximum of a further 6 months. An interim measure would only be available in the eventof circumstances that could not have been reasonably foreseen to prevent it being used tocircumvent the normal by-law making process. It will not be possible to re-confirm aninterim measure upon expiry nor to introduce one retrospectively. The Secretary of Stateand SFC would be able to revoke an interim measure if circumstances changed or if therewas evidence that the measure was not effective in tackling the threat for which it wasintroduced. With an interim measure in place, SFCs would have time to pursue a by-law inthe usual manner if a permanent measure was considered necessary.

7.35 We will expect SFCs to regularly review their by-laws and any interim measures and toamend or revoke these if they are not effective.

By-law scope

7.36 SFCs are able to introduce by-laws applicable throughout their districts for themanagement of fisheries as well as for wider marine environmental purposes, such as theprotection of species and habitats from fishing activity. We intend to update andstrengthen these powers to address a number of deficiencies that have been identified bySFCs and other stakeholders. Our key proposals are set out below:

7.37 Marking of fishing gear – we intend to clarify SFCs’ powers to require, through by-law, themarking of fishing gear carried on board or deployed within their districts. Marking offishing gear (e.g. pots, lines, trawls, etc.) is a way of attributing ownership by attaching amarker buoy or a tag(s) usually displaying the name and registration number of the vesselfrom which they were deployed. Different configurations of marker buoys may also beused to signal the direction in which the gear extends. Marking of fishing gear will enableSFCs to regulate more effectively. It also helps avoid conflict between vessels usingdifferent types of gear, which can cause extensive damage, and claims for compensation(e.g. conflict between static and towed gears). It would also mean that SFCs will able tointroduce measures that are consistent with EC requirements on marking of gear inoffshore waters.

7.38 Permit schemes – a number of SFCs operate permit schemes for fisheries within theirdistricts. Permits help SFCs obtain information about the number of vessels/ peopleoperating in the fishery. We intend however, to put beyond doubt the use of permitschemes to control fishing effort for conservation and enforcement purposes by enablingSFCs to restrict the number of permits issued. We will also clarify that SFCs should be ableto attach reasonable conditions to permits.

7.39 SFCs are currently able to regulate activities involving the taking of sea fish and shellfish(including crustaceans and molluscs). They are not, however, able to regulate a number ofhigh impact activities such as bait digging for ragworms and lugworms, or seaweedgathering. We believe SFCs should be able to manage such activities and proposetherefore to extend SFC competence to cover living aquatic resources.

7.40 To reduce inconsistency between fisheries regulations and to strengthen SFC management,we will extend the list of actions that may be controlled by SFC by-laws to include: fishing,taking, retaining on board, trans-shipping, landing, transporting, storing, selling,

105


displaying, exposing or offering for sale or possessing living aquatic resources. This wouldbring by-law making powers into line with Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) provisions, withnational fisheries legislation, would close potential loopholes in the law, makeenforcement easier and increase consistency.

7.41 Basic information about the numbers of fish caught, where they were caught and thefishing effort employed is fundamental to effective fisheries management. Without thisinformation, it is not possible to set realistic catch or effort limits or to know when andwhere seasonal or area closures might serve a useful purpose. Many SFCs already operatelimited catch recording schemes but we intend to provide SFCs with a clear authority torequire the provision of the full range of information they require.

7.42 SFCs need to undertake scientific research and other related operations to properlydischarge their management responsibilities. This may involve the collection of undersizespecimens, fish tagging and use of gears that do not comply with fisheries legislation (e.g.the use of undersize mesh). This work may be carried out by the SFC itself or delegated tocontractors. We believe SFCs should be able to undertake this work under a generalexemption from fisheries legislation.

7.43 The inland jurisdiction of SFCs ends at the high water mark in most cases. This can lead tomonitoring and enforcement difficulties for SFC officers when pursuing infringementsinland. It also means that SFCs are not able to introduce by-laws that may need to extendinland of the high water mark in order to be fully effective. To address these issues weintend to extend the jurisdiction of SFCs throughout the area of any council liable to pay,or contribute to the payment of, the expenses of the Committee.

7.44 Water Framework Directive (WFD)26 – SFCs may in future need to introduce by-lawsrelating to fisheries in support of WFD objectives. The Directive covers estuarine andcoastal water out to 1nm from land. Its main objective is to enhance the status andprevent further deterioration of aquatic ecosystems and associated wetlands through theachievement of ‘good ecological status’.

7.45 Fishing has been identified as a significant pressure in coastal waters that may preventwater bodies from achieving ‘good ecological status’. We will ensure SFCs will be able totake action in these circumstances, for example, to reduce or prevent damage to bottomhabitats resulting from the use of towed fishing gears.

Enforcement

7.46 Officers appointed by an SFC have powers to undertake monitoring and inspections offisheries activities taking place within their jurisdiction. These range from powers to stopand search a vessel to powers of seizure of suspected undersize fish and illegal gears.

7.47 Many of these powers need reform to take account of modern fishing practices and toensure SFCs are properly equipped to discharge their responsibilities in the future. Weintend to update the powers of SFC sea fisheries officers and will bring them into line withthe powers of British Sea Fishery Officers (BSFOs) as discussed further at 7.143 – 7.147.This is part of our plan to establish a comprehensive list of powers from which differentenforcement officers operating in the marine environment may draw.

106


107

Penalties

7.48 We believe penalties for by-law offences should be proportionate to the offence and actas a deterrent against future offences. The maximum fine available to the courts for a by-law offence upon summary conviction is currently £5,000. The courts may also orderforfeiture of the catch and any net or other fishing gear.

7.49 In high value fisheries, a maximum fine of £5,000 does not act as a deterrent and is oftennot perceived as a proportionate penalty following a conviction. We will considerincreasing the maximum fine available to the courts upon summary conviction, possibly to£50,000 in line with other fisheries legislation (e.g. failure to observe quota limits and forlogbook offences). We will also consider a similar increase to the penalty for obstructingan officer of an SFC.

7.50 We intend to modify the courts’ powers of forfeiture. In future, the courts should be ableto impose a fine to the value of the catch and fishing gear, in lieu of forfeiture. This isbecause the courts and SFCs are not necessarily equipped to handle and dispose of largequantities of forfeited gear or catch. To overcome the practical difficulties associated withstoring loose fish we will also extend powers of forfeiture to any box or receptacle used tostore the forfeited catch.

7.51 Suspend or withdraw a permit – we believe the courts should be able to suspend or withdrawany permit issued by an SFC in cases where permit conditions have not been observed. Thisproposal would bring the court’s powers into line with those available to ministers for otherfisheries offences under Section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967.

7.52 Remedial action – We propose that the courts should be able to order remedial actions, oraward reasonable costs to an SFC to cover remedial action, in cases where environmentaldamage has occurred. Human intervention to promote restoration of the environment atsea can be difficult and natural regeneration may be the most appropriate response. In suchcases, compensatory remediation elsewhere in the environment might be appropriate.

Remedial Action

The are a number of examples where remedial or compensatory action may be appropriate:

• a person convicted for taking undersize lobsters might be required to contribute to a re-stocking programme operated by an SFC; and

• a person successfully prosecuted for scallop dredging in an area closed to fishing (for theprotection of sensitive habitat) might be required to pay for research and monitoring intothe damage caused and the rate of recovery. Such research would benefit the futuremanagement of that site and other sites.

7.53 Administrative penalties – To promote consistency in relation to fisheries offences we believethat SFCs should be able to offer an administrative penalty for offences against SFC by-lawsin line with the national scheme of administrative penalties set out at 7.135 – 7.142.Administrative penalties for by-law offences will be separate from a national scheme becausethe legislation used for by-laws is different. We will pursue powers so that in future a systemof administrative penalties for by-law offences could be introduced using the nationalscheme as a model. This would be subject to any requirements to meet standards of goodregulation introduced in response to the Macrory47 review.


108

Funding and administration

Funding

7.54 SFCs are funded by constituent local authorities with whom SFCs negotiate a voluntarylevy. Some SFCs claim that these arrangements have resulted in insufficient funding for thefull ranges of services expected of them. Some local authorities have opted out ofcontributing to their local SFC(s) altogether.

7.55 To strengthen SFC funding we propose that:

• all local authorities (upper and single tier authorities) with a sea or estuary coastline(tidal waters) shall be constituent members of an SFC;

• a levy for all reasonable expenses of the Committee in carrying out any of its dutiesshall be decided by the local authority members who will have exclusive voting rightson such matters; and

• the levy must be funded by the constituent local authorities.

7.56 As part of the new funding arrangements, we will enable SFCs to recover a proportion oftheir costs of operating permit schemes from those who directly benefit. The costs wouldinclude set up, monitoring and general management costs associated with operatingpermit schemes as well as costs of completing appropriate assessments required undernature conservation legislation.

7.57 Furthermore, we propose to enable SFCs to charge for services undertaken on behalf ofother authorities and keep receipts. We will also ensure SFCs are able to assign ownershipof capital assets (e.g. patrol vessels).

7.58 Modernising SFCs and imposing new duties on them will represent a new funding burdenon constituent local authorities. A proportion of this will be offset through efficiencysavings, such as increased cooperation with the MMO and the EA and through anyreduction in the overall number of SFCs. Proposals for recovering the costs of operatingpermit schemes and for keeping receipts for work undertaken on behalf of anotherauthority will also reduce the new burden.

7.59 We propose that the additional new burden will be met by central government through aone-off adjustment to the Revenue Support Grant.

Administration

7.60 SFCs need access to a wide range of services for their effective operation, including adviceon employment law as well as legal and financial guidance. SFCs also need advice ondrafting by-laws, taking prosecution cases, carrying out scientific research, enforcementtraining, etc. These are areas where a number of SFCs encounter difficulties securingadequate funding.

7.61 Some SFCs are able to use local authority resources whereas others employ their ownexpertise or buy in services. Certain SFCs operate sub-committees and advisory boards toassist the running of the Committee. We intend that the provision of such services and theoperation of sub-committees and advisory boards should form part of the general runningcosts of SFCs and should be funded accordingly.


109

Working with others

7.62 SFCs operate alongside the MFA and the EA. Collaborative working has improvedconsiderably in recent years and has addressed inefficiencies that can arise fromoverlapping jurisdiction. SFCs also work closely with other authorities operating along thecoast and at sea including:

• harbour authorities

• Police Service

• Fire Service

• HM Revenue and Customs

• Natural England (NE)

• Fish Health Inspectorate

• local authorities (e.g. environmental health officers)

• Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)

• Food Standards Agency

• The Crown Estate

• Gangmaster Licensing Authority

• Health and Safety Executive

7.63 Our proposals will strengthen the working relationship between SFCs and theseorganisations. We also intend that SFCs should be able to undertake functions in themarine environment on behalf of other authorities where empowered to do so. This isbecause SFCs have a significant sea-going and on-shore capability and extensive localknowledge and experience that could be used in a wider management role.

7.64 We envisage that SFCs will be able to provide enforcement services on behalf of the MMO inrelation to wider marine nature conservation measures falling within SFC’s geographicjurisdiction (for example, in relation to Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) as proposed in6.26 – 6.98). SFCs might also make available waterborne resources in the event of a localemergency (for example, as a command and control platform for the fire service); undertakewater sampling; and enforce shellfish Several and Regulating Orders not held by SFCs.

Number of SFCs

7.65 The Bradley Review9 proposed that the 12 SFCs in England and Wales might be reduced toabout 6. Reducing the number of SFCs and increasing their size would improve the scopefor a developed staffing and career structure. It could further improve collaboration withthe MMO and the EA and drive efficiency savings though the better utilisation ofexpensive capital assets.

7.66 We will develop proposals later this year for any changes in the future number andborders of SFC districts in consultation with the Committees, the fishing industry and withother stakeholders. In doing so we will take account of factors such as existing fisheriesmanagement areas; the pattern of fishing activity; as well as political and administrativeboundaries.


110

The Environment Agency

7.67 The EA has powers of an SFC in a number of estuaries. In this capacity, the EA does notoperate a formal Committee nor is it able to levy local authorities for funding. Theabsence of a formal Committee and the resulting less direct involvement of localstakeholders can lead to difficulties when making and implementing by-laws. The absenceof a clear funding mechanism has meant the EA must prioritise its resources to theThames, Dee and a small number of estuaries in Cornwall.

7.68 As part of the exercise to review the number and borders of SFCs we will look at thearguments for transferring management responsibility for estuarine areas from the EA(acting as an SFC) to the adjacent coastal SFC.

7.69 We do not propose to change the EA’s general fisheries duties (to maintain, improve anddevelop salmon, trout, eel and freshwater fisheries throughout its area of jurisdiction) norits responsibilities as a competent authority under the WFD.

SFC Title

7.70 This reform represents a significant change for SFCs. Management of fish and shellfishstocks would remain a key focus but there would be greater consideration of widerenvironmental impacts. A change of name could be beneficial to mark the reform.Suggestions put forward for a new name include:

• Inshore Fisheries and Environment Authority

• Inshore Marine Managers

• Inshore Fisheries and Environmental Managers

• Coastal Fisheries and Environment Authority

• Coastal Waters Committees

7.71 In view of the potential benefits of a name change, we will consider a new title for SFCs,possibly Coastal Waters Committees.

Several and Regulating Orders for shellfish

Introduction

7.72 Sections 1 – 11 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (the Act) have two key aims. The first is to facilitate the establishment and improvement of shellfisheries (for privatecommercial exploitation) by granting a Several Order. The second is to preserve andimprove existing (wild) shellfisheries that may be at risk from over-exploitation through thegranting of a Regulating Order. Orders must specify the particular species of shellfishff theyrelate to and currently can be made in relation to oysters, mussels, cockles, clams, lobsters,scallops, queen scallops and crabs.

ff Shellfish are defined in the Act under s.22 as including crustaceans and molluscs of any kind.


7.73 Regulating Orders either impose restrictions or make regulations (or both) respecting thedredging, fishing for and taking of shellfish specified in the Order. Such an Order is usuallygranted to a SFC or other public body. Orders confer the right of regulating theshellfishery in relation to the specified shellfishery, but do not confer property rights inthose shellfish. They may also enable those to whom the Order is granted (grantees) toimpose restrictions and make regulations, with the consent of the Secretary of State (forOrders in England) or the Welsh ministers (for Orders in Wales). Often they allow for theintroduction of a licensing scheme within the shellfishery. They can also enable thegrantees to levy tolls or royalties on those exploiting the fishery.

7.74 A Several Order grants an exclusive right to develop and exploit specified types of shellfishlisted in the Order. In effect, such an order establishes a private fishery for the benefit ofthe members of the grantee (often a group of fishermen).

7.75 It is also possible to make Hybrid Orders combining Several and Regulating rights. Wheresuch an order exists, it sets up a regulated fishery that either has within its boundary oneor more areas designated as several fisheries, or allows one or more areas to be sodesignated by the grantees. The designated Several areas are leased out for privateexploitation to companies or individuals by the Regulating Order grantee.

7.76 Orders may be granted for up to 60 years, although they are usually for shorter periods.Orders can be brought to an end early if the grantees are not carrying out their obligations.

7.77 There are currently 18 Several Orders, 7 Regulating Orders and 2 Hybrid Orders in Englandand Wales covering a total area of 224143 hectares. Several Orders range from a size ofbetween 11 and 894 hectares and Regulating Orders range from 156 to 116,000hectares. The dominant activity for current Orders is mussel cultivation and cockle fishing.An individual Several Order can generate a first sale value of around £0.5m and anindividual Regulating Order up to £5m per annum.

7.78 The process of application, extension and operation of Several and Regulating Orders canbe burdensome and costly. This means that over time more and more orders might lapsewith adverse consequences for long-term sustainability, the marine environment and localeconomies. In England and Wales, there are currently 17 Orders that could lapse in thenext 10 years.

7.79 Other difficulties arise because the extent of the enforcement powers of grantees ofRegulating and Hybrid Orders is unclear. Clarity is also needed over the costs that can berecovered from those operating under these Orders by way of tolls or royalties. In relationto Several Orders, the practical ability to tackle infringements is also problematic.

Geographic scope

7.80 Several and Regulating Orders can be made in relation to England, Wales or Scotland outto a distance of six nautical miles from the usual baselines. Apart from proposals relatingto enforcement which apply in relation to England only (see 7.85, 7.89 and 7.90), theseproposals apply in relation to England and Wales.

111


Consultation

7.81 We consulted stakeholders in England during the summer of 2006 on a range ofproposals to address these issues. Views submitted as part of that exercise helped shapeour final proposals and these are set out below.

Proposals

Application process

7.82 Applying for Several or Regulating Orders and extensions to them can be expensive andburdensome. This is largely because a public inquiry is triggered in the event of even arelatively minor objection to the proposed Order. The same objection can trigger a secondinquiry should there be an application to extend the period of an existing Order. The costsof dealing with an application including the costs of holding a public inquiry must be metby the applicant. Where a public inquiry is held the costs can range from £30,000 up to£100,000.

7.83 Our aim is to reduce the likelihood that a public inquiry will be called, which weunderstand can deter applicants. We plan to do this by removing the criteria under whicha public inquiry is presently triggered. In future, public inquiries will only be held whereserious or substantial issues are raised or where the Secretary of State or Welsh ministersconsider that in the circumstances, an inquiry should be held.

Enforcement – Regulating Orders

7.84 Grantees of Regulating Orders have powers under the Act to enforce restrictions andregulations specified in their Orders. These regulations and restrictions can set quotas, limit access and restrict the types of activity permitted within the fishery. Those powershowever, are ill defined. This has led to confusion on the part of grantees as to the extentof their powers to enforce Orders.

7.85 To address this problem we propose that for SFCs in England their sea fisheries officers’powers be extended so that they can enforce the provisions of Regulating Orders. This willallow local SFCs to provide enforcement services to grantees, should they request them.

7.86 SFCs are grantees of nearly all current Regulating Orders and it is our intention in future togrant new Regulating Orders only to SFCs as part of our proposals to reform inshorefisheries management arrangements in England.

Enforcement – Several Orders

7.87 Grantees of Several Orders are in general individuals or private companies. They own thespecified shellfish on the bed and the taking, disturbing or damaging of the shellfish orthe shellfishery by anyone else is prohibited. The Act places restrictions on the equipmentallowed for fishing and on other activities that take place within a Several Order area.

7.88 The Act, however, does not give any specific enforcement powers to grantees of SeveralOrders. They must rely on the Police to follow-up any complaints of suspected theft orother offences.

112


7.89 We believe that for SFCs in England their sea fisheries officers should be empowered toenforce the law in relation to Several Orders in much the same way as we propose inrelation to the provisions of a Regulating Order. SFCs however are not usually the granteesof Several Orders and therefore would only undertake enforcement activities whererequested by the grantee.

Enforcement – Private shellfisheries

7.90 There are a number of privately owned shellfish beds. These are normally in relation tooysters and establish private rights in much the same way as Several Orders. Private oysterbeds are also protected under the Act in the same way as several fisheries. To ensure thatthe shellfish cultivated under these rights can be effectively protected we plan in relationto SFCs in England to extend their sea fisheries officers’ enforcement powers to includethese private fisheries. SFCs would only use their enforcement powers where requested bythe owner to do so.

7.91 Under these proposals, we will also extend to all privately owned shellfish beds theprotection currently available under the Act in relation to privately owned oyster beds. This proposal will make for consistent management of both several and privately ownedshellfisheries and will mean fishermen and others know where they stand when operatingnear shellfish beds.

Tolls and Royalties

7.92 At present grantees of Regulating Orders may be able to levy tolls and royalties on thoseexploiting the fishery and these must be applied in the improvement and cultivation of thefishery. We intend to clarify that grantees may levy tolls and royalties to cover start-upcosts already incurred that are associated with applying for an Order as well as ongoingmanagement costs once an Order is in place.

7.93 Start-up costs would include application costs, including costs of any public inquiry andoutlay on any environmental assessments. Management costs would include stock survey,monitoring and inspection costs and the general administration of the fishery.

7.94 Clarifying the scope of tolls and royalties in this way will enable grantees of RegulatingOrders to recover a proportion of the costs associated with the Order from those whobenefit directly from it. As now, the tolls and royalties would be set out in each order thussafeguarding against unreasonable charges. Any subsequent increase in tolls and royaltieswould need the consent from the Secretary of State or Welsh ministers, again as they arenow.

Offences

7.95 Grantees of Regulating Orders are usually able to issue licences to users of the fishery. The grantee, with the consent of the Secretary of State or Welsh ministers, may cancel alicence if the licence holder is convicted of two offences of contravening a restrictionimposed by the Order.

113


7.96 This mechanism only applies however, where the licence holder is convicted and notwhere a person acting on behalf of a licence holder, for example the skipper of a fishingvessel, is convicted for offences of breaching a restriction imposed by the Order. Thismeans that the licence holder may profit from illegal activity undertaken by the skipper ofhis vessel but is unlikely to face the prospect of prosecution and therefore any realprospect of the grantee cancelling his licence.

7.97 To address this we intend to make it clear that insofar as a vessel is used to commit anoffence, the vessel master, owner or charterer or any one of them can be liable for thatoffence. This approach is consistent with other fishing vessel licensing arrangements.

7.98 In order for our proposal to be effective, it will be necessary for the grantee to only issuea licence to the master, owner or charterer of a vessel and for the vessel to be specifiedon the licence. This is already common practice.

7.99 As part of these changes, we plan to enable grantees to cancel licences following a singleconviction, rather than two, subject to consent from the Secretary of State or Welshministers.

7.100 Under the Act, the maximum fine available to the courts for an offence upon summaryconviction is currently £5,000. In high value shellfisheries this is neither sufficient to act asa deterrent, nor a proportionate penalty. We will consider increasing the maximum fineavailable to the courts upon summary conviction, possibly to £50,000, in line with certainother fisheries legislation and with our proposals to reform inshore fisheries management.

7.101 The extent of the fine in each individual case will continue to be for a court to determine.Raising the maximum will allow for a fine to be set at a level high enough to be a realdeterrent to those committing fisheries offences.

Activities within a Several Fishery

7.102 The use of certain equipment for fishing and certain other activities within a several fisheryis restricted under the Act for the protection of the specified shellfish, bed or fishery. Wepropose to introduce greater flexibility over the use of fishing gear, subject to certainsafeguards. This is because some fishing gear currently prohibited (such as pots and creels)could be used without an adverse impact. Under this proposal, we will provide for suchmatters to be specified in the Order establishing the individual fishery. This proposal mayalso have the benefit of limiting objections to applications for new Several Orders frompeople who operate such fishing gear in the area of a proposed several fishery.

Lobster Orders

7.103 The Secretary of State, the Welsh ministers and the Scottish ministers may make ordersprohibiting the landing and sale of lobsters carrying spawn. Amendments to the Act in1978 in relation to Wales, and in 1999 in relation to Scotland have resulted ininconsistencies in procedures for making Orders. We intend to improve consistency byenabling the Secretary of State and the Welsh ministers to make orders without the needto act jointly with others.

114


Other improvements

7.104 In addition to the above proposals, we intend to pursue a number of minor amendmentsto the Act largely for simplification and consolidation purposes. These include allowingthe Secretary of State and the Welsh ministers to make an Order in relation to anyshellfish without first having to make Regulations to add a species of shellfish if it is noton the current list (see 7.72 above). Our proposals also include allowing the taking ofedible crab that is carrying spawn or which has recently cast its shell for scientificpurposes, currently prohibited under s.17 of the Act. Finally, we wish to ensure thatinformation sharing between organisations can occur where appropriate.

Recreational sea angling and unregulated fishing

Introduction

7.105 Recreational sea angling can be defined as ‘a leisure activity in which an individual uses arod, line and hook to catch fish on a non-commercial basis’. The Drew Report22 into theeconomic impact of recreational sea angling reported in 2002 that 1.1m householdscontain at least one member who had been sea angling in the past year and totalexpenditure by sea anglers resident in England and Wales on their sport (e.g. on fishingequipment, travel, food and accommodation) is estimated at £538m per year.

7.106 We will pursue a framework for the development of Recreational Sea Angling (RSA)recognising its economic importance and reliance on effective fisheries management. To fund delivery of some aspects of this work we propose to introduce a rod licence fee. Wewill also ensure powers are available to safeguard the sustainability of stocks by managingexploitation by sea anglers and unregulated fishermen. The planned provisions will:

• enable the establishment of a chargeable licensing scheme to deliver, though thefunds generated, improved services and benefits for sea anglers; and

• extend the relevant sections of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 to recreationalsea anglers and unregulated fishermen (i.e. fishermen not covered by the commercialfishing vessel licensing system), including the power to place limits on the number offish which can be retained (for example, through the introduction of bag limits).

Consultation

7.107 In addition to stakeholder engagement on the development of a RSA Strategy, a numberof anglers and other interested parties took the opportunity of the 2006 Marine Billconsultation to comment on RSA provisions. There were mixed reactions to thesuggestion of a chargeable licensing scheme with some support provided that there wereclear benefits to anglers from the revenue generated. Other respondents opposedlicensing on the grounds that it would interfere with the public right to fish, asserting thatsea angling has a relatively low impact on fish stocks.

7.108 Responses to the suggestion of bag limits for anglers were also mixed. This issue was alsoidentified by respondents to Defra’s consultation on an increased minimum landing sizefor bass. Taken together, there is some support for targeted measures for the control of

115


sea angling activities. We propose however, only to extend controls to angling andunregulated fishing activities on a case-by-case basis, for particular species, where justifiedon conservation or enforcement grounds. Their introduction would be subject toconsultation.

Scope

7.109 Our proposals would cover recreational sea angling from the shore and from vessels. Thiswould include anglers on their own boats or on charter vessels, but exclude thoseactivities already regulated by the EA under its rod-licensing scheme generally applicableto inland fisheries.

7.110 The proposals would apply to all recreational angling taking place on the shores ofEngland and Wales and, at sea, to angling activities within the seaward extent of Britishfishery limits adjacent to England and Wales. Everybody fishing from the shore or from aboat would be covered, irrespective of nationality.

Chargeable licensing scheme

7.111 The introduction of a chargeable licensing scheme for sea angling activities was discussedin the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit Report in March 2004, ‘Net Benefits’2, and Defra’s‘Review of Marine Fisheries and Environmental Enforcement’9 (the ‘Bradley Review’) March2004. Both reports suggested that relevant departments should consider a licensing andcatch recording scheme for sea anglers.

7.112 The Bradley Review9 proposed that a licensing scheme for sea anglers should beconsidered, similar to the EA’s inland rod licensing regime. It also recommended thatincreased weight could be given to anglers’ requirements through a range of measures.Defra has already increased the representation of sea anglers on SFCs, is collecting somescientific information in relation to species of interest to anglers and has announcedmanagement measures for bass. However, additional sources of funding will be requiredto make significant improvements in the services to anglers.

7.113 The funding provided from the introduction of a licensing and charging system would beused to help support measures such as:

• improved scientific data to inform the development of management measures forstocks of specific interest to anglers;

• protection and improvement of shore access and parking;

• provision of more small boat launching facilities;

• access to existing and new shore structures;

• creation of artificial inshore and offshore reefs; and

• clear displays of relevant rules, codes of conduct and other useful data on the shore,at boat launch sites and aboard charter boats.

7.114 The charge would also cover the costs of administration, monitoring and inspection, andevaluation of any measures introduced which directly benefit anglers. We want to be ableto introduce a chargeable licence applicable to all recreational sea fishing activitiesinvolving a rod and line.

116


7.115 The scheme would be similar to that operated by the EA for freshwater and salmonidspecies and would include the following key elements:

• revenue from the charge would provide benefits for sea angling;

• the rate of charge and any change to it would require the approval of the Secretary ofState (in relation to England) and Welsh ministers (in relation to Wales);

• licences would be available at different rates, to cover varying periods (for example, adaily, weekly or an annual licence);

• there would be a range of charges varying by age or personal situation (for exampleconcessionary rates for senior citizens, eligible disabled persons, children between 12and 16 years old with exemptions for younger children);

• group licences could be available to cover, for example, charter skippers taking peopleon trips who are not individual licence holders; and

• failure to produce a valid licence on request would constitute an offence.

7.116 In implementing any scheme, no limits would be placed on the number of licences issued.Our aim would be to put in place flexible, user-friendly arrangements for purchasinglicences, drawing on the EA scheme where licences can be bought at post offices and on-line through the EA website.

7.117 There is a range of delivery bodies available with the capacity to either administer and/orenforce a licensing and charging regime, including the EA, SFCs and the MMO. We havenot as yet determined an appropriate delivery body (or bodies) but we would be lookingto ensure that it has the administrative capacity to issue licences effectively and either hasor can call on adequate enforcement capability on the shore and at sea to ensure a highlevel of compliance.

7.118 Fisheries managers need information about the numbers and location of fish caught byanglers to inform their decision-making on any conservation measures for stocks ofinterest to the sport. We may require licence holders to provide information on theiractivities from time to time. We will be able to request the provision of this informationbut could initially pursue this on a voluntary basis.

7.119 There are precedents for chargeable licensing schemes for sea angling within the EU, inDenmark and Germany, and elsewhere in Canada, the United States and Australia.

Controls on sea angling and unregulated fishing

7.120 The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (‘the 1967 Act’) currently provides powers toregulate a range of fisheries activities. Limitations to these powers however, means thatthe level of exploitation by anglers and unregulated fishermen cannot be managedeffectively. In some circumstances, catches by anglers and unregulated fishermen have thepotential to impact on the sustainability of stocks. For example, the RIA supporting thedecision to increase the minimum landing size of bassgg stated:

117

gg A summary of these responses and a Regulatory Impact Assessment, which evaluates the costs and benefits of the proposalsare available from [email protected]


“If each of the 350,000 bass anglers took home only one fish with an average weight of1.1kg each year, then the total quantity of fish taken by bass anglers would be around400 tonnes, though the true figure may well be higher. It is therefore likely that thequantity of bass caught by recreational anglers is significant.”

7.121 Limitations to powers available under the 1967 Act have also been highlighted in thecontext of recent proposals for conservation measures in relation to tope.16 The inability toapply controls on fishing from the shore could limit the effectiveness of any futureconservation measures.

7.122 Under our proposals we will ensure that it is possible to apply controls to shore basedfishing activity and to set limits on the number of fish (‘bag limits’) which may be retainedover a specified period (e.g. per day). Such limits would be required in relation both tothose fishing from the shore and from vessels not subject to the commercial fishing vessellicensing system. Enforcement could be undertaken at sea and on the shore by the MMO,SFCs and the EA.

7.123 In general, having the ability to apply the range of conservation controls applicable tocommercial fishing under the 1967 Act to anglers and unregulated fishermen could bejustified on equity and sustainability grounds, particularly for stocks such as cod, bass andtope, and would also aid enforcement. There would be full consultation in anycircumstances where it is intended to make use of these controls.

Enforcement and control of commercial fishing

Introduction

7.124 Compliance with fisheries legislation is essential for sustainability and the long-term futureof the industry. This is achieved by encouraging the fishing industry to comply with thelaw and by ensuring effective deterrents are in place to guard against non-compliance.

7.125 The EC has made a firm commitment to conserve fish stocks and thus protect the fishingindustry through the development of the CFP. The CFP sets out specific roles andresponsibilities for member states of the European Union in relation to control andenforcement. As a member state, we have an obligation to take the inspection andenforcement measures necessary to ensure compliance with the rules of the CFP.

7.126 Defra is the lead UK department for fisheries at EC level and works closely with itscounterparts in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Fisheries is a devolved matter andeach devolved administration is responsible for implementing and enforcing the CFPregulations in its area of jurisdiction.

7.127 The MFA was established in 2005 and is an executive agency of Defra. It is responsible inpractice for fisheries enforcement in relation to matters that are the responsibility of theSecretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. This work is carried out by BSFOs.Enforcement activity covers inspections, surveillance, satellite monitoring of fishing vesselsand fishing activity. It also covers investigations and administrative functions such asfishing vessel licensing. The purpose of the MFA’s enforcement work is to achieve

118


compliance with legislation and thus ensure fish stock management measures are giventhe opportunity to have an effect and hence to ensure sustainability in fish stock levels.Enforcement therefore plays a crucial role in the future of sustainable fisheriesmanagement. The Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) carries out similar tasks inthe UK territorial sea in Scotland and the Scottish zone, as does the Department ofAgriculture and Rural Development (DARD) in the UK territorial sea in Northern Irelandand the Northern Ireland zone.

7.128 Community fisheries legislation is made under the CFP framework and member stateshave an obligation to take the inspection and enforcement measures necessary to ensurecompliance with that Community legislation. We need to create the conditions to do thatwithin our national legal system. We use powers in a complicated framework of existingprimary and secondary legislation to grant licences and permits for fishing, to makebreaches of the rules criminal offences, to give fisheries officers the powers to investigate,and to give the courts the powers to try and to punish offenders.

7.129 The body of CFP rules which we need to apply to our fishing boats, includes both rulesemanating from Europe and rules emanating from international agreements entered intoby the Commission on behalf of member states.

7.130 The CFP delegates limited powers to member states to take measures in their territorialwaters or waters under their jurisdiction in certain circumstances. We generally use thedelegated powers to make legislation applying to our fishing boats within our territorialwaters. Legislation made in this way is generally referred to as domestic legislation. Wealso have power to take emergency measures. Similar legislative powers are enjoyed bythe appropriate devolved authorities in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Geographic scope

7.131 We will pursue measures that will generally apply to England, Wales and Northern Irelandand their respective marine areas as well as to English, Welsh and Northern Ireland vesselswherever they are.

Proposals

Control of UK nationals

7.132 The first area where we plan to strengthen our powers is in relation to the control ofactivities of our nationals on non-UK fishing boats outside EC waters.

7.133 Currently our legislation provides for enforcement of the rules against masters, owners andcharterers of UK boats fishing anywhere in the world, and non-UK boats when they arefishing in our waters. As part of the Commission’s drive to combat illegal fishing on theHigh Seas, certain provisions of the CFP go further and require member states to controlfishing activities of their nationals on other states’ boats when those boats are outside ofEC waters, without prejudice to the primary responsibility of the flag state. We interpretthis to mean that we need to apply the body of CFP fishing rules to our nationals who areowners, masters and charterers of non-UK boats outside EC waters. We need to amendpowers in our current legislation to enable us to deliver this EC requirement.

119


7.134 Fishery officers are currently not able to carry out inspections of non-UK vessels outside ofBritish fishery limits. However, the MFA, SFPA and DARD will work closely withenforcement agencies around the world to ensure that inspection reports are shared suchthat they are made aware of the activities of any British nationals on non-UK vessels.Arrangements currently exist for the sharing of inspection reports and other evidence(such as sightings at sea). Such evidence will be used where appropriate to prosecute ournationals who transgress the rules as either masters or owners of other states’ boats.

Administrative Penalties

7.135 The second area where we are seeking additional powers concerns the introduction of asystem of administrative penalties for fisheries offences. The current system of sanctionsfor fisheries offences relies exclusively on the criminal court procedure. However ‘NetBenefits’2 said that:

“criminal penalties should be reserved for persistent and extreme ‘criminal’ behaviour. For the rest the imposition of administrative penalties ….would be a sufficient deterrent”

7.136 In our response to ‘Net Benefits’2, we said that we supported the aim of using aresponsive system of administrative penalties for breaches of fisheries regulations andwould develop proposals for a greater use of penalties which provide the safeguard ofappeal mechanisms but which do not automatically involve recourse to the courts.13

7.137 This is in line with the recommendations made by Philip Hampton34 who said that:

“administrative penalties should be introduced as an extra tool for all regulators, with theright of appeal to magistrates’ courts…..”

7.138 He also said that administrative penalties are quicker and simpler than court proceedingsand could reduce the burden of time and worry placed on businesses under threat ofprosecution, while allowing regulators to restrict prosecution to the most serious cases.Such a system could also make it easier for regulators to deter potential offenders. Weaim to ensure that our proposals are consistent with these goals.

7.139 In looking in further detail at the Hampton recommendations, Professor Richard Macroryhas recommended the use of monetary administrative penalties backed up by anappropriate appeal mechanism. He has acknowledged that this could be provided by thecourts, although his preference is for a right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

7.140 Against this background we have worked closely with our stakeholders and counterpartsin the devolved administrations to create a system of administrative penalties for minoroffending that could provide streamlined arrangements and yet be sufficiently flexible toprovide for a very wide variety of fisheries offences (most of which can be committed in awide variety of ways from very minor to very serious). We have looked at the options fora transparent system, where the ability to deal with offences outside of the court systemwould reduce uncertainty for fishermen. We have concluded that a scheme whereFinancial Administrative Penalties (FAPs) are offered in appropriate cases as an alternativeto criminal prosecution would be the most appropriate type of system. We consulted theindustry on the introduction of such a system in February 2006.

120


121

7.141 As the process model below demonstrates, an individual who is offered a FAP will havethe option of either paying the penalty and discharging liability for prosecution in relationto the matter, or opting to have his case heard in court in the usual way. Once the FAPhas been issued, it is proposed that the fisherman will have 28 days to make this decision.If the fine is paid within the specified time, no criminal proceedings will be taken and nocriminal conviction will be recorded in relation to the offence. If the penalty is not paid,the matter will be forwarded for prosecution. FAPS will only be offered in appropriatecases – serious breaches will continue to be prosecuted in the usual way. The system willbe applied to both UK and foreign vessels.

7.142 The response to our consultation was generally positive and in 2008, we will take forwardproposals for such a scheme in relation to offences that are breaches of EC rules, usingpowers in existing legislation. We plan to extend these powers so that the scheme can beapplied to all offences. Similar arrangements for an administrative penalty system inScotland are in hand.

Officers’ powers to enforce fisheries legislation

7.143 BSFOs and officers appointed by an SFC currently enforce fisheries legislation and need arange of powers to allow them to perform their duties and functions effectively. Theseofficers can only do what the legislation gives them the power to do. Their powers arecurrently derived from a variety of legislative sources including the Sea Fish (Conservation)Act 1967, the Sea Fisheries Act 1968, the Fisheries Act 1981, the Sea Fisheries(Regulation) Act 1966, and a number of statutory instruments made under those Acts.Not all powers are available to all officers in all situations: they can be limited to certainoffences depending upon which Act or Order applies. Whilst in general the powersavailable are consistent in most situations, there are a number of discrepancies resulting inlack of clarity for fishermen and exploitable loopholes in the law. This has led tocircumstances in which officers are unable to carry out their functions fully.

7.144 For example, in relation to most offences, BSFOs have the power to require the master ofa fishing boat to take it and its crew to the nearest convenient port and to detain theboat in that port during investigations or a court hearing. With licensing offences (whichonly apply to UK boats), the power is not available in relation to any offence committedoutside of British fishery limits. Although sparingly used, this is an essential power thatneeds to be available to officers in relation to all offences and in relation to UK boats,wherever the offence in question occurs.

7.145 In addition, officers currently have wide powers to order that gear is hauled in, and toexamine gear on boats. But they have very limited powers to examine and seize gear inthe sea that has been set illegally and may be causing harm to the marine environment.We will give officers the powers to seize gear where it is being used in the commission ofan illegal act, and to deal appropriately with gear so seized.

7.146 Our overall aim is not to seek a sweeping extension of existing BSFO powers but rather toimprove their consistency and coherence. We shall do this by creating, as far as possible,one list of modernised and improved powers that are automatically applicable to allofficers in all enforcement situations. This will include improved powers to search,rationalised powers to require vessels to go to the nearest suitable port and to detainvessels in port and powers to use reasonable force in all enforcement functions.


7.147 Under obligations stemming from the CFP, we will in future also need to make provision forBSFOs operating in other member states’ waters. We are considering whether additionalpowers will be necessary for this and we may consult other coastal states in the EC.

Fisheries Act 1981

7.148 This Act provides that certain provisions of EC fisheries Regulations automatically becomecriminal offences within our legal system and officers and courts are automatically (i.e.without secondary legislation) given the powers that they need to enforce those criminaloffences. In other circumstances, the law requires us to make secondary legislationimplementing the EC regulation and giving the regulators the required powers. This isunnecessary complexity that we need to rectify. We intend to do so by extending thecircumstances in which the powers are granted automatically without the need forsecondary legislation. In particular we intend to amend the geographic extent of theprovision (which is currently limited to British fishery limits) in relation to UK fishing boats.

Charging the fishing industry

Introduction

7.149 The 2004 Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit report ‘Net Benefits’2 proposed that cost recoverybe introduced for fisheries management and enforcement. In their joint response to thereport, ‘Securing the Benefits’13, the UK fisheries administrations undertook to considerthis issue, taking into account questions such as the possible impact on the internationalcompetitiveness of the fleet, the variable costs of managing different parts of the UK fleetand the need for equitable treatment across fishing sub-sectors.

7.150 ‘Net Benefits’2 estimated that the total cost of fisheries management is in the order of£100m per annum. Having carefully considered the recovery of these costs, we haveconcluded that, at this time, it would not be possible to recover a significant proportionof these costs without introducing significant cross-subsidies that could distort theoperation of the market or make the UK fleet less competitive in international markets.

7.151 There may be benefit in recovering some of the costs of fisheries management however,in a way that helps to meet wider social and environmental goals. For example, a chargethat was related to the environmental costs of certain fishing methods could help toprovide incentives to select less damaging fishing gear. This implies a modest, targetedcharging scheme might be appropriate. Such a scheme could be delivered though the useof our existing powers to charge for fishing vessel licences.

7.152 Because the vessel licensing scheme is unified across the UK, levying a charge for licenceswould require agreement between the devolved administrations. The amount recoveredcould not be more than the total costs of administering the licensing scheme. Anyscheme would also require the approval of the Treasury and full consultation beforeintroduction. These factors would help ensure that any future proposed scheme met thebroad objectives set out above and addressed concerns relating to cross-subsidy andcompetitiveness.

122


123

Proposal

7.153 Although the existing charging power allows some flexibility, for example allowingdifferent charges to be set for different types of licence, it may not be sufficiently flexibleto allow charges to vary according to fishing method for example. We therefore proposeto ensure that we can recover licensing administration costs in a more flexible manner.

Out-of-date and redundant fisheries legislation

Introduction

7.154 There are a number of Acts of Parliament concerning fisheries that date back to 1771 andwhich are largely redundant or out of date. We intend to review these and, where itsmakes sense to do so, repeal out-of-date or redundant provisions.

7.155 Reviewing and, where appropriate, repealing out-of-date or redundant fisheries legislationis consistent with recommendations made in the Davidson Review4 on implementation ofEU legislation.

Proposals

7.156 The Acts we will review include:

• White Herring Fisheries Act 1771 – an Act for the encouragement of the WhiteHerring fishery.

• Sea Fisheries Act 1868 – an Act to carry into effect a Convention between HerMajesty and the Emperor of the French concerning the Fisheries in the Seas adjoiningthe British Islands and France, and to amend the laws relating to British Sea fisheries.

• Seal Fishery Act 1875 – an Act for the establishment of a close time in the sealfishery in east Greenland waters.

• North Sea Fisheries Act 1893 – an Act to carry into effect an InternationalConvention respecting the liquor traffic in the North Sea.

• Behring Sea Award Act 1894 – an Act to provide for carrying into effect the awardof the Tribunal of Arbitration constituted under a treaty between Her Majesty theQueen and the United States.

• Seal Fishery (North Pacific) Act 1895 – An Act to provide for prohibiting thecatching of seals at certain periods in Behring Sea and other parts of the Pacific Oceanadjacent to Behring Sea, and for regulating the seal fisheries in those seas.

• Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Act 1912 – An Act to make such provisions withrespect to the prohibition of catching seals and sea otters in certain parts of the PacificOcean, and for the enforcement of such prohibitions as are necessary to carry out aConvention between His Majesty the King, the United States of America, the Emperorof Japan, and the Emperor of All the Russias.


• Sea Fish Industry Act 1951 – An Act to make provision for the reorganisation,development and regulation of the white fish industry; to amend the law relating tofishery harbours, the catching and landing of sea fish and other matters affecting orconnected with the sea fishing and whaling industries; to abolish the Scottish FisheriesAdvisory Council; and for purposes connected therewith.

• Sea Fish Industry Act 1962 – An Act to make further provision, by way of financialassistance and otherwise, with respect to the white fish and herring industries,including provision relating to the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board;to make further provision for the regulation of fishing for, and the landing andcommercial use of, sea-fish, and with respect to shellfish; to enable the chargesleviable at certain harbours to be varied, and to facilitate borrowing for certainharbour and marine work undertakings; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

124


125

Our Aim

The UK Government intends to set up a new Marine Management Organisation (MMO) todeliver many of our objectives for the marine area. A new organisation would be a centre ofmarine expertise, provide a consistent and unified approach, deliver improved coordination ofinformation and data and reduce administrative burdens. The integration proposed wouldprovide benefits from joined up delivery and economies of scale that could not be realised byplacing those functions in separate organisations.

Summary of our proposals8.1 The UK Government has decided to create a new MMO to carry out many of the marine

delivery functions for which it has responsibility. Northern Ireland ministers also currentlysupport the delivery of functions for which they have responsibility through a regionaloffice of the MMO.

8.2 The MMO will act as a champion for the integrated management of our seas. It will makea unique contribution to sustainable development by bringing together the delivery ofmany of the marine functions of the UK Government and Northern Ireland administrationwithin a single independent body, including functions relating to strategic planning,streamlined marine licensing, fisheries management and enforcement and natureconservation enforcement.

8.3 We envisage that the MMO will have approximately 300-350 staff – including posts currentlywithin the Marine Fisheries Agency (MFA), which will be incorporated within the MMO. Itwill have a headquarters function located outside of London, and offices around the coast.The current ministerial preference for Northern Ireland envisages a regional office, likelylocated in Belfast. Taking account of the volume and nature of functions to be delivered, it isenvisaged that approximately 35-40 staff would be located there, including a number ofposts currently within the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate (SFI), for which the Department ofAgriculture and Rural Development (DARD) in Northern Ireland is responsible.

Introduction

Marine Management Organisation Vision8.4 The vision of the UK Government and Northern Ireland administration for the MMO is of a

professional and proactive marine manager, trusted by all stakeholders to contribute tosustainable development of the marine area. The MMO will achieve this by developingforward looking marine plans, which provide a sound framework for:

• decision-making within streamlined licensing regimes;

• expert marine fisheries management;

• proportionate nature conservation; and

• the effective, fair and consistent enforcement of regulation.

8.5 The MMO will create a comprehensive system to identify, acquire and access the key dataand information sets needed to deliver its functions.

8. A Marine Management Organisation

Geographic scope8.6 The MMO will have responsibilities in relation to England and Northern Ireland and, in

each case, the adjacent UK territorial sea and the UK offshore area.

8.7 UK Government and the devolved administrations are committed to working in a joinedup way whilst respecting the devolution settlement. The Welsh Assembly Government andScottish Executive are considering the arrangements for delivery of devolved marinefunctions that will work best for them – as detailed below.

8.7 Our intentions for the MMO described in this section therefore relate throughout to thedelivery of non-devolved functions, functions in relation to England and the adjacent UKterritorial sea and devolved functions in relation to Northern Ireland only. This does notpreclude the MMO delivering services on behalf of Welsh and / or Scottish ministers byarrangement.

8.8 The UK Government, Northern Ireland administration and other devolved administrationswill develop a close working relationship between the MMO and other marine deliveryorganisations to maximise coordination and consistency throughout UK waters.

Northern Ireland

8.10 In relation to Northern Ireland, it is proposed (subject to the views of the Northern IrelandAssembly on restoration of devolution) that a regional office of the MMO will deliverdevolved functions similar to those delivered by the MMO on behalf of the UK Government.

Scotland

8.11 Scottish ministers with the assistance of the Advisory Group on Marine and CoastalStrategy (AGMACS) are currently considering how to deliver marine functions in relationto Scotland that are devolved.

8.12 In the offshore area adjacent to Scotland, we intend that UK Government and Scottishministers would be jointly responsible for planning. The MMO might administer planning inthis area, if after further consideration both Governments decide this is the best approach.

Wales

8.13 The Welsh Assembly Government is committed to improving integration and co-ordinationand believes this is best achieved in Wales by bringing together policy development andpolicy delivery functions. The Welsh Assembly Government vision for improving publicservices in Wales is set out in ‘Making the Connections’.60 Key to this vision is ensuringmore coordination between service providers and achieving economies of scale in servicedelivery to get value for money. This is why the Welsh Assembly Government believes thatgiving the MMO functions that have been devolved in relation to Wales or setting up anMMO for Wales would not be right (for Wales).

8.14 In Wales, Welsh ministers will be responsible for preparing marine plans. The experiencegained from the Wales terrestrial spatial planning process will help guide how marineplanning develops in Wales. Welsh ministers will also have responsibility for theestablishment of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) and for delivering and enforcingother nature conservation measures outlined in section 6 in Welsh waters. Welsh ministerswill also retain responsibility for devolved licensing functions.

8.15 The Welsh Assembly Government is considering how best to take forward marinemanagement and policy in Wales that creates synergies between fisheries, natureconservation, licensing, marine planning and enforcement similar to those proposed underthe MMO. This will be influenced by the outcome of consultation on the future of SeaFisheries Committees (SFCs) and inshore fisheries management in Wales (see section 7).

126


8.16 The UK Government and Welsh Assembly Government intend to create a close workingrelationship between the MMO and Welsh ministers to ensure coordination andconsistency across the England-Wales border. Our aim is to respect devolution but not todisadvantage businesses that interact with Welsh Assembly Government, the MMO orboth. Welsh ministers will work with other bodies, such as the MMO, to ensure thatlicensing decisions and enforcement of marine legislation are undertaken in the mostefficient manner. Defra and the MFA currently undertake some activities on behalf ofWelsh ministers – who may ask the MMO to deliver these or other activities in the future.

Integrated management within a single organisation8.17 The main benefits of a single MMO are that integrating functions within a single body will

lead to more transparent and efficient arrangements and better outcomes. The synergiescreated will deliver significant benefits.

8.18 An outline of the functions we intend the MMO to deliver is set out in Table 6. The MMO willbring these together, separating them from the policy-making roles of the UK Governmentand Northern Ireland administration in keeping with the overall strategy to separate policy anddelivery. Combining the delivery of a wide range of marine management functions within asingle independent organisation will result in more than the sum of these parts. Establishingan MMO will create synergies between activities that will improve the delivery, coordinationand enforcement of individual functions and the overall management of our seas.

8.19 The MMO will result in multiple benefits. As well as being a strong champion for our seasit will provide:

• the ability to pro-actively implement UK Government policy in the marine area througha comprehensive cycle of marine management – planning, fisheries management,nature conservation, licensing and joined-up enforcement;

• a significant step forward from a sectorally based approach to a more flexible,integrated, sustainable approach to management of the marine environment;

• a clearer framework for resolving potentially conflicting objectives betweenconservation and the use and enjoyment of our marine environment – and betweendifferent uses of the marine environment;

• integration and consistency between marine licensing regimes;

• integration of fisheries management with environmental priorities;

• a flexible set of modern fit for purpose sanctions that are consistent with the risk basedapproach to enforcement outlined in the Hampton report – and increased consistencybetween marine management regimes;

• more effective use of data – free flow of information within the MMO so that eachfunction is informed by material gathered as a result of the MMO’s other functions;

• more effective relationships with marine developers, nature conservation bodies andrecreational users of the sea – who will be able to communicate with a singleorganisation at the planning, licensing and enforcement stages of marinemanagement;

• thematic rationalisation of enforcement services by combining the enforcement offisheries, nature conservation and licensing regimes within a single regulator; and

• improved efficiency through shared corporate services and operational synergies.

127


128

Table 6: Summary of MMO functions

MMO functions

Marine Planning Prepare and deliver a series of marine plans to implement the shared UK marine policy statement –in areas where UK Government and Northern Ireland are responsible (whether individually or jointly with others) for marine planning.

Marine Licensing Deliver the reformed licensing regime to regulate environmental, navigational and other impacts ofconstructions, deposits / removals, dredging, licensing of oil dispersants and carbon dioxide storage– in UK offshore waters (apart from the Scottish zone and adjacent areas of the continental shelf), and in the territorial sea and internal waters around England and Northern Ireland.

Deliver licensing of renewable energy installations under s36 of Electricity Act 1989 in UK offshore waters (apart from the Scottish zone & adjacent areas of the continental shelf) & under that Act orArticle 39 of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 in the territorial sea & internal waters adjacent to England, Wales or Northern Ireland.hh The UK Government’s proposals for making decisions in relation to major renewable energy development in the sea adjacent to England and Wales will be in the Planning Reform White Paper in the near future.

Administer regulation of orders under the Harbours Act 1964 and of local and private harbour Acts – in England and the adjacent territorial sea and, where not devolved, Wales.ii

Fisheries Management Fisheries functions delivered by the MFA – in relation to UK offshore waters (apart from the Scottish zone and adjacent areas of the continental shelf), and in the territorial sea and internal waters around England. Fisheries functions delivered by the SFI in relation to the UK territorial sea in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland zone.

Nature Conservation Provide advice and information to Natural England (NE) and the JNCC on socio-economic issues relating to site selection of MCZs in UK offshore waters and in the territorial sea and internal waters around England. Provide similar advice to the Department of the Environment (DOE) in relation to the territorial sea and internal waters in Northern Ireland.

Where necessary, and where no other suitable controls exist, develop and implement by- laws and interim measures to prevent unregulated activities damaging the marine environment – in UK offshore waters and in the territorial sea and internal waters around England. Provide a similar function in relation to UK territorial waters in Northern Ireland.

Monitoring and Monitoring and enforcement functions carried out by the MFA (including current functions andEnforcement those scheduled for transfer from ‘core’ Defra into the MFA in April 2007) – in England and the

adjacent territorial sea. Monitoring and enforcement functions currently carried out by the SFI in relation to Northern Ireland.

Monitoring and enforcement of marine nature conservation legislation – in UK offshore waters andin the territorial sea and internal waters around England and Northern Ireland.

Bring together monitoring and enforcement activities across the MMO’s functions and geographic scope – from gathering information and data collection, through monitoring in a proportionate and cost-effective manner, to enforcement officers equipped with a modernised enforcement “toolbox”.

Data Implement a system for managing data, information and knowledge, both that generated ‘in house’ and that collected by third parties. This system will enable information to be shared across all MMO functions, and be able to provide data and information to the public where appropriate.

hh Northern Ireland will consider further the extent of the role of the MMO in renewable energy licensing in Northern Ireland inlight of the UK Government’s proposals to be set out in a Planning Reform White Paper.

ii Northern Ireland is considering whether the MMO will exercise equivalent functions under the Harbours Act (Northern Ireland)1970. The UK Government’s proposals for making decisions in relation to major port developments in England and Wales(where not devolved) will be included in a Planning Reform White Paper in the near future.


8.20 There are strong regional and local components both to protecting the marineenvironment and developing our seas as an economic and social asset for our and futuregenerations. The UK Government and Northern Ireland administration recognise this andits importance in achieving its vision for sustainable development. The MMO through wideconsultation on draft plans (including establishing marine planning steering groups whereappropriate) will ensure that both local and regional issues are fully understood and takeninto consideration when delivering its plan making function. This will also contribute toensuring such issues are properly understood when making licensing decisions.

8.21 The MMO could also contribute to the successful delivery of marine related functions byothers. For example at a local level, the MMO may participate in MCZ managementschemes where established. Where appropriate, the MMO will act jointly with otherbodies to ensure a joined-up approach to sustainable development. For example, buildingon existing relationships between the MFA and SFCs, we envisage that SFCs will provideenforcement services on behalf of the MMO where this will provide a more effective andefficient service.

8.22 Looking beyond UK waters, the MMO will be able to provide a consolidated source ofadvice to support UK representation at European and international forums, based on itsexperience and interaction with marine stakeholders.

Regulating better8.23 The UK Government and Northern Ireland administration are committed to a more

integrated approach to sustainable development of the marine area. However, existingarrangements for managing marine activities and protecting the marine environment havedeveloped piecemeal over many years and are delivered by a number of different bodies.For example, in relation to UK Government responsibilities alone, four different UKGovernment departments currently license marine activities.

8.24 Northern Ireland’s arrangements have developed in a similarly piecemeal fashion andmarine licensing, whilst comparatively small in volume, is also spread across fourGovernment departments. Furthermore, unlike in England there has been no attempt tocoordinate activity through the establishment of a dedicated marine consents unit.

8.25 These arrangements are complex for both Government and stakeholders and lead toadded burdens. We lack an organised framework through which Government can realiseits marine strategy.

8.26 Our proposals are designed to ensure that activities in the marine area are properlymanaged through strategic planning, decision-making, management and enforcement.The creation of an MMO will introduce additional benefits by combining these functionswithin a single organisation. In particular, the MMO will be equipped with a modernisedsuite of enforcement tools, and obliged to exercise them in a way that gives effect to bestregulatory practice.

129


Functions of the new Marine Management Organisation8.27 Our ambition is a holistic marine management system. We want a MMO to take

responsibility for the bulk of this system – this is key to achieving our vision.

8.28 The marine policy statement that the UK administrations will come together to prepareand agree as the first stage of marine planning will provide the framework for themanagement of the marine area. Guided by this statement, the MMO will undertakespecific functions that together comprise a cycle of marine management. These areoutlined below and described in more detail in other sections. The MMO will be morethan the sum of its individual functions. Combining the delivery of these functions withina single body will maximise synergies between functions and improve their effectiveness.

8.29 The MMO will act in a transparent manner and involve marine stakeholders whereverappropriate. The expertise that will exist and develop amongst the MMO’s staff (and itsaccess to specialist advisors) will create a body of marine knowledge and experience.

Marine Planning

8.30 The purpose of marine planning will be to contribute towards the achievement ofsustainable management of the UK’s waters. The UK Government and Northern Irelandadministration respectively intend to delegate the preparation of plans to the MMO wherethey have sole responsibility for planning. This will support the development of a body ofmarine planning expertise.

8.31 Section 4 explains that the proposed new system of marine planning will be based on ashared UK marine policy statement, which will play a crucial role in harmonising marinerelated policies and priorities and resolving conflicts. Stakeholders have indicated that theyvalue the concept of an MMO as a neutral organisation to deliver marine plans. The UKGovernment and Northern Ireland administration intend to create an MMO that can betrusted to deliver marine plans that implement the planning statement and not to beunduly biased towards any particular marine stakeholder group or objective.

8.32 Separating delivery of planning from marine policy in this way will require our intentionsfor the marine area to be articulated clearly to the MMO. Publishing the aims, objectivesand performance management framework agreed between Government and the MMOwill improve the transparency of the planning process. Delegating planning to a discreteplanning body rather than preparing plans within central government will also targetresources to front-line delivery.

8.33 The policy statement will provide a clear direction for decision-making on issues such asconservation, fisheries, construction and development. Bringing planning together in anMMO with the elements of these regimes for which the UK Government and NorthernIreland administration have responsibility will enable consistency in interpreting the plan aswell as increased transparency of decision-making – benefiting all users of the marineenvironment.

8.34 The inclusion of marine enforcement activities (and other functions currently delivered bythe MFA) within the MMO will give it a local presence. The MMO’s organisational structure

130


of the MMO will ultimately be determined by its management – however, at present, theMFA has 18 local port offices organised in six regions across England that will initiallybecome part of the MMO. We anticipate that the bulk of marine planning functions willbe delivered from a head office, but the port offices will provide a network of coastallocations from which marine planning officers will be able to operate. This should proveparticularly useful to the MMO in setting up and supporting the proposed ‘marineplanning steering groups’, which will facilitate community input into some local coastalplans. The regional presence of an MMO in Northern Ireland will similarly facilitate theinclusion of local input into the marine planning process.

8.35 Furthermore, marine planning is defined in section 4 as ‘a way of considering andinfluencing decision-making about the range of activities occurring in the marineenvironment.’ Locating planning officers alongside the MMO officers responsible formonitoring and enforcing these activities will provide benefits for the planning processthrough the additional information exchange and communication that will be encouraged.This co-location of functions will make it easier to meet the requirements (listed in section4) to keep under review matters that may affect a plan’s content or effectiveness, as wellas to monitor progress towards the plan’s objectives.

8.36 To take forward the development of detailed plans in coastal waters, our intention is thatthe MMO will set up Marine Planning Steering Groups for some or all coastal plans wherethere is a clear need. Steering groups will contribute to the planning process and facilitatean integrated approach to coastal management. The primary role of these steering groupswill be to advise the MMO. Steering group members will apply their knowledge andexperience to contribute to the content of the plan. They will do this in the context of theshared UK marine policy statement and any guidance issued to, or advice provided by theMMO. Steering group members will be drawn from various organisations with an interestand with expertise, such as local authorities, coastal groups, local strategic partnerships,environmental organisations, industry, fishing and recreational users. They will draw onexisting structures wherever possible.

8.37 The combination of planning, licensing and other functions within the MMO mirrors thesystem that has developed on land (without replicating its complexity). Local authoritiesare able to use their experience in taking decisions on planning permissions to improvetheir plans. We want marine planning to benefit from these same synergies.

8.38 The management of marine data will be important. We intend to enable the free flow ofinformation around the MMO, so that the planning process (and marine plans themselves)will, wherever possible, benefit from access to data gathered by the MMO in undertakingits other functions.

Marine Licensing

8.39 Licensing in the marine area is currently undertaken by multiple bodies creating acomplicated and overlapping regime, which can cause difficulties for both developers andother stakeholders. Section 5 sets out our proposals to reform the marine licensingprocess. The proposed new system will streamline and simplify the process, providingintegration and consistency between licensing regimes. This can be summarised in theobjective one project:one licence.

131


8.40 These reforms will provide many of the benefits that we are seeking to bring to themarine area and overcome some of the tensions that the currently fragmented systemcreates. To fully realise our vision for the marine area, we intend to complement theselegislative changes by bringing them together where possible within a single delivery body– the MMO. Delivering as many of these new streamlined regimes as possible within thesame organisation will provide significant benefits for the marine area and for marinestakeholders.

Delivery of marine licensing under the reformed generic licensing regime

8.41 We intend the MMO to assume responsibility for licensing and enforcement under thereformed generic marine licensing regime.

Delivery of offshore licensing under the amended Electricity Act 1989 and Energy Act 2004

8.42 We generally intend the MMO to assume responsibility for all stages of this licensingregime in relation to offshore renewable energy projects. A Planning Reform White Paperwill, in the near future, include the UK Government’s specific proposals for makingdecisions in relation to major renewable energy development in the sea adjacent toEngland and Wales.

Harbour Revision or Empowerment Orders and Harbour Acts licensing

8.43 We generally intend the MMO to assume responsibility for administering the regulation ofharbour developments that is currently carried out by the Department for Transport (DfT). As above, the Planning Reform White Paper will include the UK Government’s proposals formaking decisions in relation to major port developments in England and Wales (where notdevolved).

8.44 The responsibilities of the MMO will include administering all harbour revision orders,harbour empowerment orders, and local and private harbour Acts, in England and theadjacent territorial sea and, where not devolved, Wales. In so doing, the MMO will consultwith central Government departments with policy responsibility as appropriate.

8.45 These responsibilities will remain within the Scottish Executive in relation to Scotland.Northern Ireland is considering whether the MMO will exercise equivalent functions underthe Harbours Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.

Delivery of licensing of sub-seabed storage of carbon dioxide

8.46 The MMO may in future have a role in the regulation of offshore Carbon Capture &Storage (CCS) activities (see 5.74 – 5.89).

Approach to delivering licensing functions

8.47 In making licensing decisions, the MMO will take a risk-based approach. Whereappropriate, the MMO will make use of proposed provisions to minimise regulation ofactivities with little or no adverse impact. Licensing decisions will be made in accordancewith the shared UK marine policy statement and any relevant marine plan, unless relevantconsiderations indicate that another course of action would be more appropriate. This isdiscussed further in section 4 (4.84 – 4.97).

132


8.48 Linking the licensing system to the proposed new system of planning will be fundamentalin ensuring the optimal performance of both, and in incorporating sustainabledevelopment into the overall management of the seas. The UK Government and NorthernIreland administration see placing both planning and licensing within an MMO – a singlebody with a single organisational philosophy – as the most efficient and effective way ofachieving this. Combination of the functions within one body will ensure consistentinterpretation of marine plans when making licensing decisions, and improve consistencyof decision-making between different sectors.

8.49 Combining licensing with other marine management functions will add further benefits.For example, we intend the experience of enforcement officers working within the MMOto achieve compliance with licence conditions to inform and potentially improve theconditions attached to future licences. Similarly, whilst the MMO will not be responsiblefor the selection or designation of MCZs, it will provide advice and information on thesocio-economic context. This will give the MMO a better understanding of MCZobjectives, which may better inform the conditions the MMO attaches to licences.

Fisheries management functions

8.50 The MFA was established as an Executive Agency of Defra on 1 October 2005. It wascreated to take responsibility for a number of delivery activities before which were theresponsibility of policy teams within the Fisheries Directorate in Defra. It also provides theWelsh Assembly Government with services in relation to devolved fisheries and otherfunctions that mirror the functions it has in relation to England and the adjacent territorialseajj. The MFA will take on additional functions before the creation of the MMO (see8.107). The MFA will be incorporated within the MMO, which will deliver all its (existingand new) functions.

8.51 The existing fisheries functions of the MFA cover UK offshore waters (apart from theScottish zone and adjacent areas of the continental shelf), and the territorial sea andinternal waters around England and Wales and are summarised below:

• enforcement of sea fisheries legislation (see section 7 for details);

• implementation of EC marketing regime;

• vessel licensing and economic links;

• management of fleet capacity;

• management of fisheries quotas;

• biological sampling activities;

• fishing industry grants and UK state aids;

• Data Collection Regulation (EC) 1543/2000;

• management, recording and provision of data on fishing activities and catches; and

• advisory role and general liaison with the fishing industry.

133

jj The Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) is responsible for enforcement of UK, EU & International Fisheries Law andregulations in the waters around Scotland.


8.52 In Northern Ireland, the SFI has responsibility for fisheries and other functions. It carries outthe same functions as the MFA in relation to the UK territorial sea in Northern Ireland andthe Northern Ireland zone. It also undertakes the following other functions:

• the regulation of sea and inland aquaculture;

• enforcement of the EC Fish Health Directive; and

• provision of technical staff to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) forthe conservation, protection and development of inland fisheries.

8.53 The Northern Ireland administration propose that the MMO should deliver the functions ofthe SFI within a Northern Ireland regional office of the MMO, with the exception of theother functions outlined above.

8.54 Section 7 sets out our proposals for a licensing and charging system for recreational seafishing. It has not yet been determined whether this will be delivered through the MFA /MMO or by another organisation.

8.55 In addition to these fisheries management functions, the MFA already has broaderresponsibilities – one of its existing objectives is ‘to contribute to the sustainable use of themarine environment’. Activities in support of this include:

• advising on activities that may impact on fisheries and the marine environment (e.g.coast protection, offshore windfarms, port developments, aggregate dredging, etc);

• enforcing operations that involve deposits in the sea under Food and EnvironmentProtection Act 1985 (FEPA);

• undertaking an advisory role in marine pollution response to oil and chemical spills andacting as Defra’s representative on Standing Environment Groups set up to assist inmarine pollution response and clean-up operations; and

• promoting liaison between the fishing industry and other marine users in order tominimise interference between fishing and other marine activities.

8.56 Incorporating the MFA, and much of the SFI in Northern Ireland, into the MMO is essentialto realise our vision of creating a holistic marine manager to successfully deliver thereformed licensing regimes and produce well-informed, practicable marine plans. It willalso add value to the MMO proposals through: allowing greater harmonisation betweenmonitoring, enforcement and data collection activities, improving consistency for industriesoperating in the marine environment and by providing an already well-established base ofmarine knowledge and expertise for the MMO to build upon.

8.57 Inshore fisheries management in England is the responsibility of SFCs, which can make by-laws for the management and conservation of their districts’ fisheries and enforce somenational and EC fisheries legislation. It is not intended to merge the SFCs into the MMO,but to modernise SFCs themselves. The challenges of inshore fisheries and environmentalmanagement often relate to conditions in very local areas and therefore require localsolutions. Local input to decision-making and local accountability is a key strength of SFCsand often means they are able to effectively resolve local issues. Maintaining decision-making at a local level in this way is consistent with the Government’s wider devolutionagenda as emphasised in the Local Government White Paper.6 The MMO will work closelywith SFCs, building on the existing relationship between the MFA and SFCs.

134


Nature conservation functions

8.58 Section 6 explains our proposals for the establishment of MCZs. As NE and JNCC alreadyprovide Defra with scientific advice on nature conservation and have the expertise toidentify possible sites, we do not intend the MMO to be responsible for the selection ordesignation of MCZs. However, it will provide advice to NE, JNCC and the DOE inNorthern Ireland on the socio-economic context for their selection. The Secretary of Statewill be responsible for formally designating MCZs (see 6.57 – 6.59).

8.59 We intend to make use of existing tools wherever possible to deliver the objectives ofMCZs without introducing unnecessary additional regulatory burdens on business.However, there could be cases where unregulated activities are (or could be) causingsignificant damage to protected areas, areas under consideration for designation asprotected areas, or mobile marine species at key life stages. Where no other suitablecontrols exist and voluntary measures have failed to work, the MMO will be responsiblefor developing and implementing by-laws and interim measures. As the delivery bodyresponsible for many of these other controls, the MMO will be uniquely well placed toundertake this function.

8.60 In practice, it is likely that the need for action will be identified by nature conservationagencies. The MMO will then use its regulatory expertise to:

• consider the need for action in the context of the Government’s Marine Policystatement;

• determine the most appropriate measures to control activities;

• develop either by-laws or interim measures to deliver those measures and

• enforce the resulting measures.

Monitoring

8.61 Effective and targeted monitoring of the marine environment and of activities occurring inor related to the sea is central to improving marine regulation. If we do not know thecurrent state of the environment, and the location, nature and scale of marine activities andtheir impacts, then we cannot plan for future activities or future environmental protection.Likewise, monitoring is an important tool in ensuring compliance with legislation.

8.62 The MMO will work within the UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy(UKMMAS), the purpose of which is to coordinate monitoring across the marineenvironment on behalf on academia, industry and government. Building on Defra’s‘Safeguarding our Seas’7, the UKMMAS report18 highlighted the need for greaterintegration of government marine monitoring programmes, and more generally the needfor a significant restructuring of the system by which marine data are collected, collatedand interpreted. The MMO’s monitoring responsibilities mean it will be well placed toassist in addressing these needs.

135


136

8.63 There is scope to add value by rationalising some monitoring activities through thecreation of an MMO. Monitoring carried out by the MMO will build upon that presentlyconducted by the MFA, who monitor fishing activities taking place in English and Welshwaters through:

• operating a Fisheries Monitoring Centre to track the position of all UK fishing vesselsexceeding 15 metres anywhere in the world, and all foreign vessels over 15m in UKwaters, using Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) satellite technology. VMS provides anautomatic cross-checking function with information held in the MFA’s Fisheries ActivitiesDatabase (which include both data collected by the MFA and data from other sources –e.g. ship, logs, sales notes), and thus enables targeted use of monitoring resources;

• inspection of fishing vessels and fishing industry premises in the major fishing ports,fish markets and other locations around the coast by MFA’s British Sea Fishery Officers(BSFOs);

• inspection of fishing vessels at sea by the Royal Navy’s (RN) Fishery Protection Squadron(operating under an MFA / MoD agreement);

• participation in joint deployment plans drawn up by the pan-European CommunityFisheries Control Agency (this may involve, for example, the deployment of RN vesselsin other member states’ waters or the provision of BSFOs to serve on other memberstates’ patrol vessels); and

• aerial surveillance (conducted under contract by a private sector firm).

8.64 The MFA’s monitoring activities will be further expanded prior to its incorporation into theMMO. The transfer of functions from Defra’s Marine Consents and Environment Unit(MCEU) (scheduled for April 2007) will give the MFA additional responsibilities, not onlyfor processing licence applications, but also for monitoring compliance with FEPA and CPAlicence conditions. In addition to this, the MFA is also broadening its functions to includemonitoring (and enforcing) the provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directives (includingwildlife licenses relating to the offshore area), which will be implemented through theforthcoming Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations in the offshore area in early 2007.

8.65 It is envisaged that existing MFA infrastructure (namely, their databases and VMS) will beadapted for these purposes. On their incorporation into the MMO, the potential also existsfor these systems to be more widely used in monitoring other activities (for example,compliance with by-laws and interim measures relating to MCZs).

Enforcement

8.66 Modernised and targeted marine planning, licensing, conservation and fisheries functionswill be undermined if they are not complemented by effective enforcement. However,carrying out enforcement in the marine environment is extremely challenging. The areaunder consideration is vast, and the resources required to work safely and effectively areconsiderable. For this reason, a risk-based approach is already widely adopted.

8.67 Moreover, the current situation is complex – whilst a range of bodies have enforcementresponsibilities in UK waters none has the full range of powers, responsibilities andcapabilities to effectively enforce new and existing marine legislation.


8.68 The creation of an MMO offers an opportunity to bring together modernised enforcementfunctions into one body, bringing benefits in consistency, clarity, predictability andproportionality.

8.69 Enforcement involves a variety of tools, from inspection, advice and collection of data, toprovision of incentives and, as a last resort, penalty regimes to punish non-compliance andremedy harms arising from it. The reforms proposed will make important improvements inmarine regulation. We will equip regulators with the tools to enforce the law in atargeted, proportionate and risk-based way, and thus avoid imposing unnecessary costs onthe regulated community.

8.70 Our proposals are based on best regulatory practice and the outcomes of a number ofrecent cross-cutting reviews of regulation and regulatory sanctions. They provide, inparticular, for the application to marine regulation of the core recommendations of theHampton Review34, the complementary work recently concluded by Professor Macrory47

and recent work also undertaken by Defra17 in relation to the enforcement ofenvironmental regulation.

8.71 Designing good regulation is no guarantee that regulatory powers will be exercised in themost effective way. Thus, we want to make sure that, in creating an MMO, we take afresh view of how those improvements can be applied to best effect in the places, and inrelation to the functions, for which the MMO will have responsibility.

Enforcement of licensing legislation

8.72 The licensing process and the exercise of licensing powers should anticipate monitoringand enforcement needs. For example, licensing authorities would often normally expectregulators to ensure that licensees themselves are subject to appropriate monitoring andreporting requirements. Those authorities, including the MMO, will retain this discretion toadapt the terms of a licence to make it fit for a particular, site- and licensee-specificpurpose. As now, a licence will therefore often include monitoring obligations to ensure,both during its life and possibly beyond it, that:

• conditions of the licence have been complied with; and

• impacts on the environment and other uses of the sea are within the limit anticipatedwhen granting the licence.

8.73 When enforcing licensing requirements, we would also expect the MMO to exerciseoversight in a risk-based way. The MMO should apply appropriate risk assessmenttechniques comprehensively, to inform all aspects of the regulatory lifecycle from theselection and development of appropriate regulatory policy instruments, through to datacollection, inspection and the application of licensing-related sanctions.

8.74 We also propose that reformed licensing controls should be complemented by amodernised suite of enforcement tools and sanctions – these are set out in detail insection 5.

137


Enforcement of fisheries and conservation legislation

8.75 Proposals in relation to the modernisation of the fisheries enforcement powers of BSFOsand officers appointed by SFCs are set out in section 6. It is intended that identicalenforcement powers should be available for the enforcement of nature conservationlegislation. This will make it easier for officers already responsible for fisheries enforcementto enforce nature conservation legislation as well.

8.76 In waters beyond 6 nautical miles around England, UK offshore waters and in NorthernIreland, it is proposed that the MMO will be responsible for the enforcement of bothfisheries and nature conservation legislation. We propose that officers of the MMO, andthose acting on behalf of the MMO (including members of the armed services), shouldhave a common set of enforcement powers applicable to enforcement of both.

8.77 In the area covered by an SFC in England, the MMO and SFCs will work closely togetherto deliver fisheries and marine nature conservation enforcement and we envisage a systemof cross-warranting of officers to enable a flexible approach to this task.

8.78 Fisheries enforcement in the Scottish zone will remain the responsibility of the ScottishFisheries Protection Agency (SFPA).

8.79 Some wildlife offences in the marine area will fall outside the expertise of the MMO, forexample where protected land-based animals are being illegally transported by ship.Where MMO enforcement officers have reason to suspect such an offence may be beingcommitted, they will work closely with the Police, or other specialist enforcement agentssuch as Customs Officers or Wildlife Inspectors as appropriate.

8.80 In a limited number of situations the MMO itself may need to call on local police forces forassistance, for example where it might be necessary to arrest someone.

Science and data

The MMO’s data needs

8.81 Many bodies currently collect and use various different types of marine data for a numberof reasons. This will not be changed by the establishment of an MMO and it will need torely heavily on data collected by third parties in order to deliver its functions. In particular,the MMO will need to work closely with the Marine Data and Information Partnership(MDIP), and the Marine Environmental Data Action Group (MEDAG).

8.82 The MMO will need to identify, acquire and access key data and information sets toundertake its functions. This information needs to be easily shared and updated by allfunctions of the MMO, across its coastal offices and at its central hub. The scale ofinformation that the MMO will need to manage will range from a UK wide basis to verylocal issues. It will need scientific and environmental data as well as socioeconomic data.

8.83 The need to create maps, charts and graphs as part of the marine planning process willprovide a strong driver for the development and implementation of standards for datacapture, categorisation and display of ‘features’ on a map. The MMO’s planning functionmeans it will be a significant user of datasets displayed as geographic information layersand is likely to become a centre of expertise for this type of information.

138


139

8.84 The MMO will also need to draw on applied or pure research from bodies such as SFCs,CEFAS, NERC labs, NE, JNCC and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) inNorthern Ireland. For example the MMO may use ecosystems models to predict possiblefuture scenarios or anticipate the cumulative effects of multiple activities in an area – suchas those developed by the National Centre for Ocean Forecasting.

Data management within the MMO

8.85 Our intention is that the MMO will adopt at its highest level a data management policythat will be fully compliant with the UK Marine Data Policy and the work of MDIP.

8.86 Central to this policy will be a comprehensive IT and data system for managing data,information and knowledge – both that generated ‘in house’, and that collected by otherorganisations. But the system will be more than just a database. To realise its full potentialit must encompass a range of practices to identify, create and distribute knowledge forreuse, awareness and learning across the organisation.

8.87 The MMO’s data management policy will be complemented by its own systems for usingdata. In developing these the MMO will take account of statutory EU Directive requirementsfor example the new Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the Community (INSPIRE).

8.88 The MMO will also need to work closely with the UKMMAS, MEDAG and with MDIPtowards developing standards for data and becoming expert in the use and application ofdata. This will benefit not only the MMO but also all users of marine information, as it willimprove standardisation and harmonisation of data.

Availability of data

8.89 We will expect the MMO to work closely with MDIP and MEDAG to contribute to aculture of sharing, circulation and reuse of data. MDIP and MEDAG are promoting the‘collect once, use many times’ principle with those who collect data. Implicit within thisphilosophy is the need to maintain a network of UK Marine Data Archive Centres (DACs)to ensure secure long-term archival for key marine data sets.

8.90 The MMO itself will need to undertake public consultations and its actions will potentiallyplace restrictions on marine users. So it is essential that the MMO can make relevantinformation freely available. For example, it will need to publish maps as part of marineplans and the coordinates defining the area of a MCZ. It may need to make a reasonablecharge for making some information available.

Research coordination

8.91 The MMO will need to be aware of what marine research is being undertaken and keepabreast of new developments and discoveries in marine science. It could additionallycoordinate existing efforts to ensure there are no significant gaps or overlaps betweenexisting research programmes.


140

Other functions

8.92 Our primary aim in establishing the MMO is to deliver the new and improved mechanismsfor developing and protecting our seas that the Marine Bill will introduce, and thesynergies in incorporating within the new organisation the functions of the MFA and SFI.The MMO may also take on other functions (not necessarily derived from the Marine Bill)where these are complementary to its overall aim.

Establishing the MMO

8.93 The MMO will be established as an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB),following standard procedure as outlined in Cabinet Office guidance5. NDPB status is themost appropriate and cost-effective way to establish the MMO. To make this assessment,the necessary characteristics of an organisation delivering the functions outlined abovewere identified, and different status options were evaluated against them.

8.94 These included:

• having the confidence of all relevant government departments and being sufficientlyindependent from any one government department or minister;

• consistency with wider (i.e. non-marine) government initiatives – such as Hampton,Lyons46 and Gershon32;

• recognisable by stakeholders outside of government to reflect the overall priorities ofgovernment (rather than individual departments)

• value for money; and

• ability to exercise a marine planning role with propriety – and attract the ‘right’ staff.

8.95 We intend the MMO to exhibit best practice as an employer, maximising the potential ofstaff by encouraging personal development, promoting effective governance throughoutthe organisation and ensuring maximum transparency and accountability.

8.96 Where existing posts are delivering functions that will in future be delivered by the MMO,those posts will generally transfer. Staff in those posts will be given the option oftransferring to the MMO. Early consideration will be given to pay, pensions and otherterms and conditions of service for staff transferring to the MMO. Information for staffand consultation about the proposed changes has begun and will continue throughoutthe process. The MMO will also recruit new staff by fair and open competition.

Governance

8.97 It is crucial that the MMO is accepted as serving the government-wide sustainabledevelopment agenda rather than delivering only Defra and DoE specific aims (e.g.environmental, nature conservation and fisheries objectives). Ensuring recognition of thisindependence by both stakeholders and across Government is essential in realising ourvision for the MMO.


141

8.98 Thus, whilst governance arrangements for the MMO will be based on the standardCabinet Office NDPB guidelines5, they will additionally recognise that UK Governmentdepartments other than Defra (whose policy interests include fisheries, marine natureconservation, integrated coastal management, flood and coastal erosion risk managementand the marine environment) have a direct interest in the sustainable management of ourseas, including:

• Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) – policy interests – energy generation – oil andgas and renewables;

• Department for Transport (DfT) – policy interests – shipping and ports and harbours;

• Communities and Local Government (CLG) – policy interests – marine aggregates,interaction with terrestrial planning system and local authority responsibilities;

• Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) – policy interests – marine heritage,recreation and tourism; and

• Ministry of Defence (MoD) – policy interest – defence activities in the marine area.

8.99 In Northern Ireland, DOE is leading on work towards a Marine Bill on behalf of theNorthern Ireland administration. The DOE’s policy concerns include marine natureconservation, marine aggregates, maritime heritage, the marine environment andinteraction with the terrestrial planning system and local authority responsibilities.However, several other departments also have a direct interest here, including:

• Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) – policy interests – seafisheries and fisheries harbours;

• Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) – policy interests – energygeneration (renewables), telecommunications, tourism;

• Department for Regional Development (DRD) – policy interests – shipping and portsand harbours and

• Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) – policy interests – inland fisheriesincluding the management of salmon and eel stocks, recreation.

8.100 As the MMO will be an NDPB of Defra, the Secretary of State (Defra) will in practice beformally accountable to Parliament for the activities and performance of the MMO andpublic money spent by the MMO. He will be advised on the discharge of hisresponsibilities in relation to the MMO by a cross-government MMO sponsorship group,which will include Northern Ireland representation. This will enable the interests of UKGovernment departments and Northern Ireland to be represented, without compromisingthe clear lines of responsibility necessary to ensure proper accountability. The MMOsponsorship group will advise the Secretary of State on matters such as an appropriateframework of objectives and targets for the MMO, how well the MMO is achieving itsstrategic objectives and whether it is delivering value for money.

8.101 In addition to the cross-government sponsorship group, a further safeguard to ensure theMMO’s independence will be provided by guidance agreed jointly across all relevant UKGovernment departments and Northern Ireland. The MMO will be required to take thisinto account, and the guidance will be renewed as necessary.


8.102 Northern Ireland will be fully integrated into the organisational structure of the MMO.Arrangements will be put in place that will respect the devolution settlement. If incomingNorthern Ireland ministers adopt the MMO model, they will have full accountability fordevolved functions delivered by the MMO.

8.103 The MMO Board will have corporate responsibility for ensuring that the MMO fulfils theaims and objectives set by Government and for promoting the efficient and effective use ofstaff and other resources by the MMO. The Chairman of the Board will be responsible tothe Secretary of State. We anticipate a mix of Board members from the public, private andvoluntary sectors, and that members of the MMO Board will be part-time non-executives.

8.104 Board members will be selected based on their skills, experience and ability and from abroad spread of interest groups / organisations. In appointing Board members theintention will be to include a wide range of marine experience and interest – across allthree ‘pillars’ of sustainable development:

• economic – for example aggregate extraction, energy (oil & gas & renewable), fishing(commercial and recreational), tourism, ports / harbours & shipping, submarine cablesand pipelines;

• environmental – for example species, habitats, fish stocks, water quality; and

• social – for example defence / military operations, heritage and recreation.

8.105 Detailed funding arrangements for the MMO will be determined in due course. Financial,auditing, and accountability arrangements for the MMO will all be in line with Treasuryguidance, the Government Accounting Manual and the Government Financial ReportingManual42,43.

Steps in advance of creating an MMO

8.106 We will make a number of changes to Defra’s functions in the marine environment inadvance of the Marine Bill. These include the merger of licensing functions currentlydelivered by Defra’s MCEU and MFA to form a broader Marine and Fisheries Agency as ofApril 2007. Its nature conservation functions will also be extended at this time to includeenforcement of the 2007 Offshore Marine Regulations.

8.107 Regulation of marine aggregates licensing, which is currently delivered by CLG, will alsobe transferring to Defra, and specifically to the new Marine and Fisheries Agency inadvance of the Marine Bill (also scheduled for April 2007).

8.108 Bringing together existing marine functions in this way prior to the Marine Bill will easethe transition towards establishing a truly holistic marine manager (the MMO).

Relationships with other bodies8.109 The MMO will need to develop and maintain effective working relationships with a large

number of government bodies and external stakeholders. The detail of these relationshipswill be subject to agreement and development over time. However, the outline of how weanticipate some of these relationships might work is set out below.

142


Relationship between the MMO and Natural England and JNCC

8.110 NE’s advisory functions include giving advice to public authorities on the conservation,enhancement and management of the natural environment. The JNCC is the forumthrough which the four UK conservation bodies – NE, Countryside Council for Wales,Scottish Natural Heritage and the DOE in Northern Ireland through the Environment andHeritage Service (EHS) – deliver their statutory responsibilities for the United Kingdom as awhole and internationally.

8.111 The MMO will look to NE for advice when discharging its functions within 12 nauticalmiles, whilst JNCC will be consulted beyond 12 nautical miles.

8.112 Likewise, NE and JNCC will consult with stakeholders to identify sites for consideration fordesignation as MCZs. The nature conservation agencies will seek advice and informationfrom the MMO with respect to socio-economic factors.

Relationship between the MMO and CEFAS

8.113 CEFAS is an Executive Agency of Defra. It is the largest UK Government body deliveringapplied marine science. Although one of an array of bodies carrying out marine researchand monitoring, it is the only one in England and Wales whose primary focus is to meetthe specific needs of UK government policy-makers, managers and regulators. FisheriesResearch Services provides the same function in Scotland.

8.114 CEFAS provides scientific assessment and advice for managing and conserving fisheries,and for the conservation of marine and freshwater ecosystems. It undertakesenvironmental monitoring and assessment of nutrients, radionuclides, chemicals and othercontaminants in the environment. Specifically, CEFAS provides Defra (and MFA) DTI andCLG with advice in relation to marine licensing and the Government View procedure(GV)kk for marine aggregate extraction. CEFAS also provides advice on aquaculture, diseasecontrol and hygiene of fish and shellfish; an incidents and emergency response supportservice and undertakes research and project management in support of all these services.

8.115 We do not intend to merge CEFAS as a whole into the MMO. This is consistent with theviews of most respondents to the March 2006 Marine Bill consultation that expressed aview on the potential incorporation of CEFAS within the MMO. The main reasons for ourdecision to retain CEFAS as a separate entity from the MMO are as follows:

• CEFAS has almost twice the number of staff that we anticipate the MMO will need todeliver its functions. We don’t want the MMO to lose focus on its functions bycombining it with such a large science and research oriented organisation;

• CEFAS is working to deliver a new business plan designed to preserve Government’saccess to essential marine scientific services. This includes increasing the proportion ofscience / business that CEFAS delivers for customers outside Defra. Including CEFAS

143

kk Shortly to be replaced by regulations (The Environmental Impact Assessment and Natural Habitats (Extraction of Minerals byMarine Dredging) (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2007 being prepared by the CLG, and equivalent Welsh andScottish provisions.


within the MMO could introduce tensions between the MMO’s need to focus ondelivery of its functions and CEFAS’ need to focus on expanding science / businessopportunities to secure its long term future and

• we believe keeping the two organisations separate will make it easier for the MMO toseek the information and advice it needs from the most appropriate of the array of bodiescarrying out marine research and monitoring – including but not limited to CEFAS.

8.116 CEFAS currently maintains the scientific expertise and broader experience Governmentrequires to support the management of human activities in the marine area. We intend tomaintain the provision of high quality sound, impartial, scientific advice to underpindecision-making by the MMO and are considering how best to satisfy this need. Thiscould mean a core group of scientists advising from within the MMO, with further inputfrom CEFAS and others as needed. To avoid duplicating the scientific advisory capabilitywe are considering whether the team currently providing scientific advice from withinCEFAS should transfer to the MMO.

8.117 CEFAS is also the repository for a large amount of knowledge and data about the state ofthe marine environment and the impact of human activities over time. The MMO will needto draw on a range of data, including that currently held by CEFAS in delivering itsfunctions. We envisage a two-way exchange of information between the two organisations.

Relationship between the MMO and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute(AFBI) Northern Ireland

8.118 AFBI is a DARD – sponsored NDPB. AFBI carries out a wide range of research,development, testing and environmental monitoring functions for DARD, otherGovernment departments and a range of other private and public sector customers.Specifically, AFBI also provides DARD Fisheries Division (and DoE / EHS) with advice inrelation to marine licensing.

8.119 We do not intend to merge AFBI with the MMO. The main reasons for our decision toretain AFBI as a separate entity from the MMO are as follows:

• In Northern Ireland DOE and DARD operate as two distinct departments. In order forAFBI to deliver its functions to its core customers, it seems more manageable to developtwo-way agreements through a Service Level Agreement, or similar agreement, with theMMO, in line with its existing working relationship with DARD Fisheries Division. Thiswould also allow those relevant parts of DoE / EHS to enter into similar agreements.

• We believe keeping the two organisations separate will make it easier for the MMOto seek the information and independent advice it needs from the most appropriate ofthe array of bodies carrying out marine research and monitoring – including but notlimited to AFBI.

• AFBI has an extensive and diverse range of research and other scientific interests, and its inclusion could skew the focus of the MMO away from wider marinemanagement issues

144


8.120 AFBI currently holds the greater body of scientific expertise and broader experienceGovernment requires to support the management of human activities in the marine areain Northern Ireland. We intend to maintain their provision of high quality, sound,impartial, scientific advice to underpin decision-making by the MMO, and are proposingto satisfy this need via an appropriate agreement such as an Service Level Agreement.

8.121 AFBI is also the repository for a large amount of knowledge and data about the widerstate of the marine environment and the impact of human activities over time. The MMOwill need to draw on such a range of data, including that currently held by AFBI indelivering its functions. We envisage a two-way exchange of information between the two organisations.

Relationship between the MMO and Sea Fisheries Committees

8.122 Our proposals for the reform of SFCs are detailed elsewhere in this document. WhilstSFCs will remain outside of the MMO, both organisations will work closely together todeliver joined-up management of inshore waters. In doing so they will build on thecollaborative working with the MFA that has developed significantly over recent years.

8.123 We will strengthen this working relationship by enabling SFCs to undertake functions inthe marine environment on behalf of the MMO; assigning a seat on each SFC to theMMO; and transferring from the Secretary of State to the MMO the responsibility forappointing SFC members with fishing angling and other relevant interests. We envisage atwo-way exchange of data and information between the two organisations.

Relationship between the MMO and English Heritage

8.124 The role of English Heritage (EH) includes providing advice on the historic environment,including designated or scheduled sites in or on the seabed in the UK territorial seaadjacent to England. Beyond 12 nautical miles EH gives heritage advice on a voluntarybasis. The MMO will look to EH for advice on these matters when discharging its functions.

8.125 The MMO may also need access to appropriate heritage advice beyond 12 nautical milesin order to fulfil its functions and ensure that protection of the historic environment isgiven adequate consideration. The UK Government is considering the most appropriatemechanism to achieve this.

Relationship between MMO and the Environment and Heritage ServiceNorthern Ireland

8.126 The EHS is an agency of DOE in Northern Ireland. EHS currently has a number of roles andresponsibilities that extend into the marine area adjacent to terrestrial Northern Ireland.These include protecting wildlife species and habitats, conserving maritime heritage andensuring compliance with a number of European Directives such as Bathing Waters andShellfish Waters. DOE is also the licensing authority for deposits in the sea under Part II ofFEPA, and EHS currently has full responsibility for this function. EHS is the competentauthority regarding integrated river basin management for inland, estuarine and coastalwaters out to 1nm in UK territorial waters adjacent to Northern Ireland through the Water

145


146

Framework Directive (WFD), and has responsibility for most water pollution control out to3 nautical miles under the Water (Northern Ireland) Order, 1999. It also has certainstatutory responsibilities, including monitoring functions in relation to coastal waters.

8.127 The MMO, through its Northern Ireland regional office, will develop a close workingrelationship with EHS, which we envisage including two-way sharing of advice andexpertise in support of each other’s functions. We would expect, for example;

• EHS to be represented on any marine planning steering groups that the NorthernIreland regional office of the MMO may establish;

• EHS to be a consultee in relevant marine licensing decisions;

• the MMO, through the Northern Ireland regional office, to make an importantcontribution to the delivery of WFD objectives in Northern Ireland;

• the Northern Ireland regional office of the MMO to be an EHS consultee with regardto WFD management plans for coastal areas and

• the potential involvement of the Northern Ireland regional office of the MMO in EHS’River Basin Catchment Groups as these are established.

Relationship between the MMO and the UK Hydrographic Office

8.128 The United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO) is an agency of the MoD undertakingboth civil and defence roles. It provides hydrographic services for UK waters, is responsiblefor the provision of hydrographic and environmental information in support of UK nationaldefence and produces officially recognised navigational charts and publications for use bythe RN and commercial shipping. The UKHO also holds a variety of marine navigationaland environmental data. Central to this is bathymetric and seabed data.

8.129 The data held by the UKHO and its expertise in hydrographic services will be important tothe MMO in delivering its functions in the marine area. The relationship between the twoorganisations will need to facilitate the identification, acquisition and accessing of keydata and information sets so that the MMO can undertake functions such as planningand licensing accurately and arrive at informed decisions. We envisage a two-way flow ofdata and information about the marine environment between the MMO and the UKHOto build on our understanding of the sea and enable geographic information datasets tobe created that will greatly assist both the MMO and other users of marine data, such asacademic institutions and industry.

8.130 Additionally, the UKHO will interact with the MMO through the proposed planningsteering groups where appropriate.

Relationship between the MMO and the Crown Estate

8.131 The Crown Estate Commissioners (“Crown Estate”) exercise the rights of the Crown aslandowner of almost the entire UK seabed out to the 12 nautical mile territorial limit, inaddition to the sovereign rights to explore and utilise the natural resources of the UKContinental Shelf (including the sub soil, minerals and substrata below the surface of theforeshore and bed, but excluding oil, gas and coal). Most recently the Energy Act 2004vested rights in the Crown Estate to license the generation of renewable energy on the


continental shelf within the Renewable Energy Zone out to 200 nautical miles.37 TheCrown also owns around 55% of the foreshore, the area between mean high and meanlow water (spring tides in Scotland) and approximately half of the beds of estuaries andtidal rivers in the United Kingdom.

8.132 The Crown Estate Commissioners have a general duty to maintain and enhance the valueof the Crown Estate and the return obtained from it, with due regard to the requirementsof good management with an emphasis on the long term stewardship and sustainabledevelopment of the marine environment.

8.133 The Crown Estate Commissioners currently have an interest in relation to licensingdecisions and will have an interest in the preparation of marine plans. The MMO willtherefore need to develop a close working relationship with the Commissioners whenexercising its functions.

8.134 This close relationship will evolve through the marine planning process, and the MMO willbenefit from understanding the Crown Estate Commissioner’s position. In turn, the CrownEstate’s involvement in the preparation of marine plans will enhance its understanding ofGovernment policy in the marine area, which will assist in its performance of its generalduty – for example, through granting licences in relation to the Crown’s property interestsin relation to the seabed.

Relationship between the MMO and the Environment Agency

8.135 The Environment Agency (EA) has a number of roles and responsibilities that extend intothe marine area. These include managing flood risk, in part by building defences andissuing flood warnings; the regulation of sea fisheries in certain areas where it has thepowers of a SFC; the management of stocks of salmon, sea trout and eels; protectingwildlife species and habitats; and promoting recreation. The EA is the competent authorityregarding integrated river basin management for inland, estuarine and coastal waters outto 1nm in relation to England and Wales (for the purposes of the WFD) and hasresponsibility for most water pollution control out to 3 nautical miles. It also has certainstatutory responsibilities in relation to monitoring of coastal waters.

8.136 The MMO will develop a close working relationship with the EA, which will include two-way sharing of advice and expertise in support of each other’s functions. We wouldexpect, for example;

• the EA to be represented on the proposed marine planning steering groups that theMMO will establish;

• the EA to be a consultee in relevant marine licensing decisions;

• the MMO to make an important contribution to the delivery of WFD objectives; and

• the MMO to be an EA consultee with regard to WFD River Basin Management Plans(RBMPs) for coastal areas.

147


Relationship between the MMO and Maritime and Coastguard Agency

8.137 The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is responsible throughout the UK forimplementing the government’s maritime safety policy, including the coordination of searchand rescue at sea, ensuring that ships meet UK and international safety rules, and also thelegislation and policy concerning the environmental control of shipping in UK waters.

8.138 There will be considerable overlap between the geographic areas of operation of theMMO and the MCA. However, they will have discrete and very different functions. Weenvisage their general relationship as primarily one of mutual cooperation as and whenappropriate.

8.139 The MCA could potentially be a member of the proposed marine planning steeringgroups, play a role in the preparation of marine plans, and will be a consultee in relationto marine licensing decisions that have an impact on navigation.

8.140 The MCA also holds significant data about the marine environment. Consideration will be given to how the MMO and MCA will work together to maximise the benefit derivedfrom this.

Relationship between the MMO and the Marine Data and InformationPartnership

8.141 MDIP was set up to increase the availability of marine data that is currently collected andheld by different organisations. This will enable the dissemination of marine data andinformation and facilitate its use by marine decision-makers and users under the ‘captureonce and use many times’ principle.

8.142 The core activities of MDIP are to:

• agree DACs and get the first wave, potentially UKHO, the British Oceanographic DataCentre and the Data Archive for Seabed Species and Habitats up and running;

• agree a set of standards for collection and transfer of data (these will be part of therequirements of the DACs) and

• make sure data is accessible to end-users, and in a readily usable format (mapping andtest use cases).

8.143 The Marine Bill consultation14 (March 2006) suggested that the MMO could potentiallytake on MDIP’s role. On further reflection, we are not now minded to follow this courseof action as the strength of MDIP lies in its partnership both across Government agenciesand with the private sector and academia.

8.144 The MMO will however need to participate in MDIP and a culture of sharing, circulationand re-use of data will need to be fostered between the MMO and the partnership tocontribute fully to the vision of increased amounts of quality-controlled data, readilyavailable at reasonable cost to the end user.

148


Relationship with Regional Assemblies, Local Authorities and RegionalDevelopment Agencies

8.145 Regional assemblies work towards improving the economic, social and environmentalstandards within regions. They function as a partnership of local government, business,public sector agencies, education and training bodies, trade unions and the voluntary andcommunity sector. Regional assemblies have been designated as Regional Planning Bodiesand are responsible for preparing, monitoring and reviewing the Regional SpatialStrategies followed by local authorities.

8.146 The primary role of Regional Development Agencies is to strategically drive regionaleconomic planning and sustainable development in their region Their aim is to coordinateregional economic development and regeneration, enabling the regions to improve theirrelative competitiveness and reduce the imbalance that exists within and between regions.They also have formal strategies for sustainable tourism, and in conjunction with theirtourism delivery partners, contribute to the regeneration of many coastal settings.

8.147 It will be important for the MMO to build sound working relationships with regionalassemblies, local authorities and Regional Development Agencies to ensure that it canconsider objectives on land and particularly to ensure a joined up approach to majorcoastal issues and developments such as ports, which will feature in both land and marineplans. These relationships will also enable these terrestrial bodies to consider marineimpacts on land.

Implications of previous reviews for the MMO8.148 The decision to establish an MMO follows several previous reports and reviews that

suggested an integrated delivery body for the marine area. These have beencomplemented by reports and reviews identifying best practice in delivery, regulation,location and enforcement across Government more broadly. Our proposals build on theprinciples set out in those reports and reviews.

8.149 Responses to the 2006 Marine Bill consultation15 indicated broad support for setting up anMMO to deliver specific marine functions such as marine planning and licensing.

Bradley review

8.150 The Bradley ‘Review of Marine Fisheries and Environmental Enforcement’9 considered thecase for creating a single marine agency with responsibility for managing fisheries. Theaim of the review was to recommend options for the most effective organisation ofenforcement to meet conservation objectives and the long-term needs of the fishingindustry. The review identified organisational complexities for the delivery of marinefisheries functions, which had led to a fragmented approach to the management of themarine area. Bradley’s assessment was that this hinders the effective management of themarine area and therefore the sustainable development of our seas.

8.151 The UK Government has made some organisational changes in relation to the delivery ofits fisheries functions with the creation of the MFA in October 2005. This brought

149


150

together for the first time in one organisation the service delivery, inspection andenforcement activities provided by the UK Government to the fishing industry and othermarine stakeholders in England.

8.152 The UK Government has now gone beyond the remit of the Bradley review to considerthe organisational complexities for the delivery of other marine functions. As a result, theMFA will be subject to substantial rebalancing, and broadening of its functions beyondfisheries in preparation for its inclusion in the MMO. This will include:

• transfer of existing marine licensing and consents work from ‘core’ Defra – scheduledfor April 2007; and

• enforcement and wildlife licensing in the offshore area which will arise with theintroduction of the Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations (which transpose theHabitats25 and Birds23 Directives in the offshore area) in early 2007.

Safeguarding our Seas and Seas of Change

8.153 The UK Government and the devolved administrations set out their strategy for theconservation and sustainable development of our marine environment in ‘Safeguardingour Seas’.7 We explained that our vision of clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologicallydiverse oceans and seas would be delivered by pursuing policies that promote sustainabledevelopment, integrated management, stakeholder involvement, robust science and theprecautionary principle.

8.154 The UK Government set out its proposals for delivering this vision in the ‘Seas of Change’consultation.8 The consultation outlined the proposed development of an operationalframework for ecosystem based management which would include elements such as aninterdisciplinary approach to policy, establishing more integrated and adaptive marinemanagement / policy, assessing the status of marine resources, incorporating mechanismsfor decision-making, identifying delivery and recovery tools and setting out theinfrastructure for delivery.

8.155 Responses to that consultation raised concerns that there was no single body or ministerresponsible for the overall marine environment and hence marine management andconservation was not joined-up.

8.156 The UK Government’s response to the ‘Seas of Change’ consultation10 proposed asupporting approach to our proposed strategic goals and objectives for the marineenvironment, including coordinating its activities with those of its agencies and with thedevolved administrations to enable streamlined and effective mechanisms of regulation.

Net Benefits and Securing the Benefits

8.157 In ‘Net Benefits’2 the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit recommended (recommendation 33)that ”In the medium to long term, the UK Government and devolved administrationsshould consider integrating fisheries management tasks inside a marine environmentagency responsible for broader management tasks…”.


151

8.158 In ‘Securing the Benefits’13, the joint UK administrations response to ‘Net Benefits’2, weaccepted that fisheries and wider marine environment priorities should be jointly managedwithin the framework of sustainability and that this should be part of an integratedmarine management system where environmental and economic objectives are managedtogether to ensure a healthy, diverse and productive marine environment. ‘Securing theBenefits’13 also recognised that close collaboration would be required to achieve the aim of a more integrated approach to marine management. It explained that one of the mainactions that the four administrations would be taking, both together and within their own areas of responsibility was to examine the case for creating one or more integratedmarine agencies.

Report on the Marine Environment & Government response

8.159 This report was published in March 2004 by the UK Parliament’s Environment, Food andRural Affairs Committee.44 It found that the current legislative and institutional regimesgoverning the marine area were too complex due to a lack of coordination betweengovernment departments. It recommended that the “Government should considerwhether a coordinating agency should be established to ensure that the links are madebetween all the many activities that may affect the marine environment.”

8.160 In reply to this recommendation, the UK Government concluded that it would need toconsider whether improved arrangements would be needed to provide greatercoordination in taking forward recommendations of the cross-cutting marine reviews. The UK Government is now certain that such a coordinating role could best be fulfilledthrough the creation of an MMO.

Hampton review

8.161 The final report in the ‘Hampton review, Reducing Administrative Burdens: effectiveinspection and enforcement’, considered the scope for reducing administrative burdens bypromoting more efficient approaches to regulatory inspection and enforcement, withoutcompromising regulatory standards or outcomes. Much of the final report considered thecase for change in regulatory inspection and enforcement, and made specificrecommendations concerning regulatory practice and data collection, which areconsidered elsewhere in this White Paper. Chapter 4 of the report turned its attention tothe structure of regulators, and made recommendations for rationalisation, to create aregulatory system that delivers the same or better outcomes more efficiently, and tosimplify cross-boundary working leading to reduced administrative burdens. It wasconcluded that taking this forward would reduce the number of regulators businesseshave to interact with, ensure the same or better outcomes, and a more comprehensiveapproach to risk assessment.

8.162 The incorporation of the MFA within the MMO will mean no net increase in the numberof marine delivery bodies.


1. Cabinet Office (2004). Making and managing public appointments – a guide fordepartments (3rd edition).http://www.cabinet-office.gsi.gov.uk/public/documents/pdf/public-appt_guide.pdf

2. Cabinet Office (2004). Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing. A report by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit.www.strategy.gov.uk/downloads/su/fish/pdf/NetBenefits.pdf

3. Cabinet Office (2005). Regulation – Less is More. Reducing Burdens, Improving Outcomes. A Better Regulation Task Force Report to the Prime Minister. ISBN 0711504660.http://www.brc.gov.uk/downloads/pdf/lessismore.pdf

4. Cabinet Office (2006). Davidson Review, Final Report. PU084. HMSO London.http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/REGULATION/documents/davidson_review/davidson_review.pdf

5. Cabinet Office (2006). Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments.www.civilservice.gov.uk/other/agencies/guidance_for_departments/pb_guidance/index.asp

6. Communities and Local Government (2006). Strong and Prosperous communities – The LocalGovernment White Paper. 06 LGFG 03889/b. Communities and Local Government Publicationshttp://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1503999

7. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2002). Safeguarding Our Seas – A Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of our Marine Environment.PB 6187. Defra Publications, London.www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/marine/uk/stewardship/pdf/marine_stewardship.pdf

8. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2002). Seas of Change: TheGovernment’s consultation paper to help deliver our vision for the marine environment. PB 7746. Defra publications, London

9. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2004). Review of Marine Fisheries andEnvironmental Enforcement (the Bradley Review). PB 9479. Defra publications, London.

10. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2004). The Government’s response toits Seas of Change consultation to help deliver our vision for the marine environment. PB9330. Defra publications, London.www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consult/seas/pdf/gov_response_seas.pdf

11. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2005). Charting Progress – AnIntegrated Assessment of the State of UK Seas. PB 9911. Defra publications, London.www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/marine/uk/stateofsea/index.htm

12. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2005). One future – different paths: TheUK’s shared framework for sustainable development. PB 10591. Defra publications, London.www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/pdf/SD%20Framework.pdf

13. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2005). Securing the Benefits: The jointUK response to the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit Net Benefits report on the future of thefishing industry in the UK. PB 10900. Defra publications, London.http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/pdf/securingbenefits.pdf

152

References

153

14. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006). A Marine Bill – A consultationdocument. PB 11751. Defra publications, London.www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/marinebill/consult.pdf

15. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006). A Marine Bill – Summary ofResponses. www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/marinebill/responses-summary.pdf

16. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006). Consultation on proposals for managing the exploitation of tope.http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/tope/index.htm

17. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006). Review of Enforcement inEnvironmental Regulation. Report of Conclusions. Defra, London.http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/enforcement/pdf/enforcereview-report.pdf

18. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006). UKMMAS: A Strategy for UKMarine Monitoring and Assessment. A Report of the Marine Monitoring Co-ordination Group.http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/marine/uk/science/pdf/ukmmas-.strategy0609.pdf

19. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006). Unlicensed Activities: A reviewto consider the threats to marine biodiversity. Building the evidence base for the Marine Bill.http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/resprog/findings/mb-threats/index.htm

20. Department of Environment, Northern Ireland (2006). An Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement Strategy for Northern Ireland.http://www.doeni.gov.uk/epd/consultation_docs/details.asp?docid=3134

21. Department of Trade & Industry (2006). Offshore natural gas storage and liquefied naturalgas import facilities. URN 06/2124. DTI Publications, London.www.dti.gov.uk/files/file35073.pdf

22. Drew Associates Limited (2004). Research into the Economic Contribution of Sea Angling, a Final report for Defra.

23. European Commission (1979). Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of WildBirds (the ‘Birds Directive’). Official Journal No. L 103, 25/4/1979, p. 1.

24. European Commission (1985). Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effectsof certain public and private projects on the environment. (the ‘Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) Directive’). Official Journal No. L 175, 5/7/1985, p. 40.

25. European Commission (1992). Council Directive 92/43/EEC the Conservation of NaturalHabitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the ‘Habitats Directive’). Official Journal No. L 206,22/07/1992, p. 7.

26. European Commission (2000). Council Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for theCommunity action in the field of water policy (the ‘Water Framework Directive’). OfficialJournal No. L327, 22/12/2000, p. 1.

27. European Commission (2001). Council Directive 2001/42/EC on the Assessment of theEffects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment. (The Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment (SEA) Directive). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-support.htm

References

28. European Commission (2002). European Parliament and Council Recommendation2002/413/EC concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management inEurope. Official Journal No. L148, June 6, 2002, pg. 24http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/reporting_guidance.pdf

29. European Commission (2003). Council Directive 2003/35/EC providing for publicparticipation in relation to the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to theenvironment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice CouncilDirectives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC. (The ‘Public Participation Directive’).

30. European Commission (2006). Communication from the Commission on Halting the Loss ofBiodiversity by 2010 – and Beyond. Sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0216en01.pdf

31. Fifth International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, Bergen (2002). (the ‘Bergen Declaration’). http://www.seas-at-risk.org/n2_archive.php?page=9&PHPSESSID=9a9e58a56400b09659375ab8395d618a

32. Gershon, P. 2004. Releasing resources to the front line. Independent review of public sectorefficiency. ISBN 1845320328. HMSO, London.http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spending_review/spend_sr04/associated_documents/spending_sr04_efficiency.cfm

33. Gubbay, S. (2006). Marine Protected Areas: A review of their use for delivering marinebiodiversity benefits. English Nature Research Reports, No. 688.http://www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/RIN688.pdf

34. Hampton, P. (2005). Reducing Administrative Burdens: effective inspection and enforcement.HMSO, London http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/A63/EF/bud05hamptonv1.pdf

35. HM Government (2006). Simplification Plans: A Summary.http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/documents/simplification/summary.pdf

36. HM Government: Electricity Act 1989 (c.29). ISBN 0105429899. HMSO London.http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890029_en_1.htm

37. HM Government: Energy Act 2004 (c. 20). ISBN 0105420042. HMSO, London.http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040020_en.pdf

38. HM Government: Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c. 5). ISBN 0105605042.HMSO London. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040005_en.pdf

39. HM Government: The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. ISBN 011052506X. HMSO London.www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950418_en_1.htm

40. HM Government: The Water Act 2003 (c. 37), ISBN 0105437034, HMSO London.www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030037_en.pdf

41. HM Government: Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8). ISBN 0105408905. HMSO London.http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_19900008_en_1.htm

154

References

155

42. HM Treasury. Government Accounting 2000.http://www.government-accounting.gov.uk/current/frames.htm

43. HM Treasury. Government Financial Reporting Manual 2006-7.http://www.financial-reporting.gov.uk/

44. House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2004). MarineEnvironment, Sixth Report of Session 2003 – 2004.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvfru/76/7602.htm

45. London Convention (1972). Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumpingof Wastes and Other Matter 1972 (and 1996 Protocol). www.londonconvention.org

46. Lyons, M. 2004. Well Placed to Deliver? Shaping the Pattern of Government Service.Independent Review of Public Sector Relocation. ISBN 1845320093. HMSO, London.http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consultations_and_legislation/lyons/consult_lyons_index.cfm

47. Macrory, Prof. Richard B. (2006). Regulatory Justice: Making Sanctions Effective. Cabinet Office publications, London.http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/documents/pdf/macrory_penalties.pdf

48. Marine Climate Change Impact Partnership (MCCIP) Annual Report Card, 2006.http://www.mccip.org.uk/arc/

49. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2006). Housing, Planning, Local Government and theRegions Committee, Coastal Towns. HC 1023-II. House of Commons publications, London.http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/odpm/coastalinq.cfm

50. OSPAR Commission (1998). Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the north-east Atlantic. www.ospar.org

51. OSPAR Commission (2003). OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3 on a Network of MarineProtected Areas. Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, Bremen June 2003, Annex 9.www.ospar.org

52. Pugh, D. & Skinner, L. (2002). A new analysis of marine-related activities in the UK economywith supporting science and technology. IACMSDT Information Document number 10.www.marine.gov.uk/publications/newmarsurvacro.pdf

53. Royal Haskoning (2006). Enforcement of marine nature conservation legislation:Examining the scope for improvements. A study building the evidence base for the MarineBill on behalf of Defra.http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/resprog/findings/mb-conservation/cr0347.pdf

54. Scottish Executive (2005). Seas the Opportunity: A Strategy for the Long Term Sustainabilityof Scotland’s Coasts and Seas. www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/26102543/25444

55. Stern, N. (2006). The Economics of Climate Change, The Stern Review. Cambridge UniversityPress. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

References

56. University of Hull (2006). Marine Species Protection: A review of risk and considerations forimprovement. A study building the evidence base for the Marine Bill on behalf of Defra.http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/resprog/findings/marine-spec/cr0354-species-protection.pdf

57. University of Liverpool (2006). Marine Biodiversity – The rationale for intervention. A studybuilding the evidence base for the Marine Bill on behalf of Defra.http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/resprog/findings/mb-rationale/mb-rationale.pdf

58. University of Wales, Bangor (2006). Developing Scenarios for a Network of Marine ProtectedAreas. A study building the evidence base for the Marine Bill on behalf of Defra.http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/resprog/findings/marine-protect/scenariosfull.pdf

59. Welsh Assembly Government (2003). Wales: a Better Country.http://new.wales.gov.uk/docrepos/40382/403823121/40382213/403822133/strategic-e.pdf?lang=en

60. Welsh Assembly Government (2004). Making the Connections: Delivering Better Services for Wales. ISBN 0 7504 3587 9.http://new.wales.gov.uk/about/strategy/makingtheconnections/?lang=en

61. Welsh Assembly Government (2004). People, Places, Futures – the Wales Spatial Planhttp://new.wales.gov.uk/docrepos/40382/40382313/40382/40382121/wsp-101104-pt1-e.pdf?lang=en

62. Welsh Assembly Government (2006). Department for Environment, Planning andCountryside. Draft Strategy for Wales on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (‘Making the Most of Wales’ Coast’).www.countryside.wales.gov.uk/fe/master.asp?n1=797&n2=123&n3=952

156

References

157

Administrative PenaltyA means of imposing a sanction for an offence without commencing criminal proceedings in thecourts against the offender, for example by issuing a fixed penalty notice.

AggregateThe mixture of minerals commonly used in the construction industry, that may be sourced fromthe seabed.

Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas(ASCOBANS)An agreement, open to participation by any range State (i.e. any state that exercises jurisdictionover any part of the range of a species covered by the Agreement or whose flag vessels engagein operations adversely affecting small cetaceans in the Agreement area) and by regionaleconomic integration organisations, to promote close cooperation in order to achieve andmaintain a favourable conservation status for small cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) in the Baltic and North Seas.

Alien SpeciesA species that has been transported by human activity, intentionally or accidentally, into a regionwhere it does not occur naturally.

Appropriate AssessmentThe assessment that is required to determine the potential effect of a project or plan on an SPAor SAC.

Bag LimitsA means of limiting exploitation of a stock. Generally used to refer to limits placed on thenumber of fish that may be retained by non-commercial fishermen on a daily or weekly period.

BaselinesLines from which the breadth of the Territorial Sea is measured pursuant to the Territorial Sea Act1987 and determined in accordance with international law (as set out in UNCLOS). British fisherylimits are also measured from these baselines

BenthicA description for animals, plants and habitats associated with the seabed. All plants and animalsthat live in, on or near the seabed are benthos.

Bequest valueThe value an individual places on ensuring the availability of a natural resource to future generations.

Better RegulationA series of principles for Government regulation, which should be proportionate, accountable,consistent, transparent and targeted and facilitate the implementation of policy in efficient andeffective ways.

BiodiversityThe variability among living organisms from all sources including, among others, terrestrial,marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part.

Biodiversity Action PlanA national plan for a key habitat or species, approved by Government, as part of the overall UKBiodiversity Action Plan.

Glossary

British Fisheries LimitsThe marine area within British Fishery Limits is defined by the Fishery Limits Act 1976.

British Sea Fishery Officer (BSFO)Section 7 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 provides that the following are British Sea Fishery Officersfor the purposes of the Sea Fisheries Acts:• Officers of the sea-fisheries inspectorates of each of the appropriate ministers other than

assistant fishery officers;• Commissioned officers of any of Her Majesty’s ships;• Persons in command or charge of any aircraft or hovercraft of the Royal Navy, the Army or

the Royal Air Force;• Officers of the fisheries protection service of the Secretary of State holding the rank of

commander, first officer or second officer;• Other persons appointed as British sea-fisheries officers by one of the appropriate ministers.• The appropriate minister in relation to England is the Secretary of State.

BycatchThe catch of non-target species and undersized fish of the target species. Bycatch of commercialspecies may be retained or discarded along with non-commercial bycatch

By-lawLegislation introduced at a local level to meet a specified need. Local authorities, Sea FisheriesCommittees, ports and harbour authorities, for example, all have the power to introduce andenforce by-laws that can have a bearing on the marine environment and its resources.

Carbon SequestrationThe capture and subsequent storage of carbon dioxide from large point sources such as fossil-fuelled power stations.

Climate regulationMaintaining a suitable climate to allow the growth and development of all living resources.

Closed areaAn area within which fishing by one or more methods of fishing, or fishing for one or more speciesof fish, is prohibited. Such areas may be permanently closed or be subject to closed seasons.

Closed seasonA period during which fishing for a particular species, often within a specified area, is prohibited.

Common Fisheries PolicyProvides the framework for the management of the EC fisheries and Aquaculture sector,including all marine fisheries within 200 miles of member states baselines.

CommunityThe grouping of animals and plants that are found living together in a particular place, habitat or environment.

Continental shelfThe area of seabed extending from the shoreline to a depth of about 200 metres or where theslope increases sharply to abyssal depths. In the UK, it is defined by the Continental Shelf Act

158

Glossary

1964 and generally extends from the edge of the territorial sea to 200 nautical miles from theprescribed baseline in most cases.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)Convention dedicated to promoting sustainable development. Signed by 150 government leadersat the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

Cross warrantingThis is the practice whereby one public body appoints another body’s enforcement officer as itsown and vice versa.

Crown DependenciesCrown dependencies are possessions of the British Crown, as opposed to overseas territories orcolonies. They include the Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man in the IrishSea. None forms a part of the United Kingdom, being separate jurisdictions, nor do they formpart of the European Union, instead having associate member status.

Crown ExemptionThe usual constitutional position is that the Crown is exempt from all statutory provisions, unlessthey state to the contrary. For this purpose, the Crown includes the Queen, the Prince of Walesin right of the Duchy of Cornwall, the Crown Estate and Government departments. Under theParliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992, Parliament too is a Crown body for the purposes ofsome legislation.

DevolutionTransfer of responsibility from the UK Government to a devolved administration.

Devolved administrationsA collective reference to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, andthe ministers and administrations working alongside them as the devolved administrations.

DredgingThe removal of material from the seabed, for a variety of purposes, including the clearing ofchannels for navigation, or the extraction of minerals.

EcosystemA community of organisms interacting with one another and with the chemical and physicalfactors making up their environment. It is a discrete unit comprising both living and non-livingparts; it can range in size from something as small and ephemeral as an intertidal pool tosomething larger such as the North Sea or the Earth’s oceans.

Ecosystem-based Approach / Ecosystem ApproachThe integrated management of human activities based on knowledge of ecosystem dynamics toachieve sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services, and maintenance of ecosystem integrity.

Ecosystem functioningThe sum of the interactions between the plants, animals, micro-organisms and physical andchemical environments that make up the ecosystem.

Ecosystem goods and servicesIndirect or direct benefits to human society that derive from the marine ecosystem. Exampleswould include food provision, nutrient cycling, gas and climate regulation.

159

Glossary

160

Environmental Impact AssessmentA procedure that ensures that the environmental implications of decisions are taken into accountbefore the decisions are made.

Environmental LimitsThe limit to which an environment or ecosystem can cope with the population, resourceexploitation and pollution pressures placed on it. Beyond the environmental limit, there is a riskof causing long-term damage to the health and productivity of an environment.

EutrophicationThe enrichment of water by nutrients causing an accelerated growth of algae and higher form ofplant life to produce an undesirable disturbance to the balance of organisms present in the waterand to the quality of the water concerned (as defined by OSPAR).

Exclusive Economic ZoneIn international maritime law, an Exclusive Economic Zone is a sea zone extending from a state’sbaselines over which the state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources.Generally, a state’s Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 nautical miles (370.4 kilometres) outfrom the baselines, except where resulting points would be closer to another country.

Existence valueThe value gained from the knowledge that there will be continued existence of habitats andwildlife, as they have significant value and contribute to global biodiversity.

Favourable conservation statusA basic requirement of the Habitats Directive. The conservation status of a habitat is favourablewhen, the natural range of the habitat and the area that it covers are stable or increasing; andthe specific structure and functions that are necessary for its long-term maintenance are likely tocontinue for the foreseeable future; and the conservation status of its typical species are similarlystable or increasing. The conservation status of a species is favourable when, the species’ population dynamicsindicate that it is maintaining itself on a long term basis as a viable component of its naturalhabitat; the species natural range is neither being reduced nor is it likely to be reduced for theforeseeable future; there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat tomaintain its populations on a long term basis.

Fisheries No Take ZoneArea of the sea closed to some or all types of fishing activity on a permanent or temporal basis.

Fixed penalty noticeA fixed financial penalty issued to a person committing an offence. If accepted, no criminalprosecution follows.

Gear restrictionA fishery management measure, widely adopted by Sea Fisheries Committees that prohibits orotherwise restricts the use of particular fishing equipment in a specified area or season.

GeomorphologyThe study of the evolution and configuration of landforms.

Glossary

Good GovernanceEffective participative systems of governance in all levels of society, which engage people’screativity, energy and diversity.

Government view systemProcess that provides Government with an opportunity to consider the environmental effects of adredging proposal before the Crown Estate issue a licence.

HabitatThe place where an organism lives, as characterised by the physiographic features and thephysical and chemical environment such as salinity and wave exposure.

Highly Protected Marine ReserveAn area of sea where all exploitative activities are excluded and other significant disturbancesminimised in order to aid the recovery marine wildlife and ecosystems.

ImposexImposex is the adoption of non-functional male characteristics, eventually leading to sterilisation.It is usually caused by pollution.

Indicator speciesA species that can be monitored as a representative of a broader community of species or onewhose abundance gives an indication of the status (health) of a particular habitat, ecosystem orenvironment.

Innocent PassageThe right of ships of all states to navigate through the territorial seas of coastal states, as set outin article 17 of UNCLOS.

Inshore WatersCan be used to refer to waters within 12 nautical miles of the baselines. It is also used moregenerally to refer to areas of sea close to the coast

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)The coordination of all activities, regulatory and management functions to safeguard all naturalresources and processes found in and affecting coastal zone. ICZM aims to integrate the variousmanagement systems and organisations, and encourage public participation, to create asustainable management approach for the coastal zone.

Internal WatersInternal waters are UK marine waters on the landward side of the baseline from which the extentof the territorial sea is measured.

International Council for the Exploration of the SeaIndependent international scientific advisory body founded in 1902, funded by 19 member states.

Intertidal areaThe foreshore or area of seabed between the high water mark and low water mark which isexposed each day as the tide rises and falls. Also called the littoral zone.

JurisdictionThe territorial range of authority or control.

161

Glossary

162

Keystone SpeciesA species that forms an essential part of a community or assemblage of species without whichthe rest of the community cannot exist.

Lowest Astronomical TidesLowest Astronomical Tides are the lowest level that can be expected to occur under averagemeteorological conditions and under any combination of astronomical conditions.

Management schemeA plan, prepared by the relevant authorities, that sets the framework within which activities willbe managed to achieve the conservation objectives of a European marine site.

Marine AreaBroad term used to imply a geographic area of UK waters.

Marine Data and Information PartnershipExpert group examining ways in which to achieve greater harmonisation and coordination ofmarine data and information through long-term stewardship and access, so as to facilitate its useby marine decision makers and users.

Marine EnvironmentBroad term used to imply a three dimensional area of UK waters.

Marine Management OrganisationThe working title for the new body that will be created to undertake new activities and existingmarine activities. Previously referred to as a ‘marine agency’ in several marine reports and reviews.

Marine Spatial PlanningProposed system for strategically managing activities in the marine area.

Marine MineralsMinerals and aggregates such as sand and gravel extracted from seabed.

Marine Nature ReserveAn area of the sea (or land that is covered by tidal waters) within 3nm of baselines that isdesignated by the government under Section 36 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Marine Protected AreaAn area of the sea subject to one or more forms of environmental control.

Marine StewardshipExercising responsibility for the management and well-being of the marine environment.

Mean High Water SpringsThe mean high water spring is the highest level to which spring tides reach on average over a period.

Mean Low Water MarkThe average of all low water heights observed over a period.

Mean Low Water SpringsThe mean low water spring is the lowest level to which spring tides retreat on average over a period.

Glossary

163

Natura 2000The European network of protected sites that represent areas of the highest value for naturalhabitats and species of plants and animals, which are rare, endangered or vulnerable in theEuropean Community. The network is made up of Special Areas of Conservation and SpecialProtection Areas for birds.

Natural Resource ProtectionThe protection of natural resources such as biodiversity (including habitats and ecosystems),water quality and supply, the soil environment, air quality, landscape, recreation and access to thenatural environment and the benefits we receive from ecosystems.

Nautical MilesA unit of length used in marine navigation that is equal to a minute of arc of a great circle on asphere. One international nautical mile is equivalent to 1,852 metres or 1.151 statute miles.

Nutrient cyclingThe continuous cycling through an ecosystem of minerals, compounds or elements that promotebiological growth or development.

Nutrient enrichmentThe addition of nutrients, mostly nitrogen and phosphorus, to the marine environment as a resultof man’s activities.

Offshore WatersCan be used to refer to waters more than 12 nautical miles from the baselines although“offshore” is also used to refer to marine areas not connected to the coast

OSPAR Convention for the North-East AtlanticThe current instrument guiding international cooperation Protection of the Marine on theprotection of the marine environment of the North-Environment of the East Atlantic.

PingerA device used underwater to produce pulses of sound, as for an echo sounder.

Polluter-pays PrincipleThe principle by which those causing the pollution are expected to bear the full costs of anymeasures required to protect the environment as a result of their actions.

Precautionary PrincipleWhere there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientificcertainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to preventenvironmental degradation (as defined in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment andDevelopment).

Regional Spatial StrategiesTerrestrial spatial strategies prepared at regional level, in line with national policy and guidance.

Regulatory Impact AssessmentA policy tool that assesses the impact in terms of costs, benefits and risks of a proposed regulation.

Relevant authorityA body that has functions in relation to land or waters within or adjacent to a marine area orEuropean marine site.

Glossary

Renewable Energy ZoneThe UK’s “Renewable Energy Zone” as prescribed for the purposes of renewable energygeneration beyond territorial waters (designated through the Energy Act 2004, under provisionsin UNCLOS).

Review of Marine Nature ConservationThe process set up in 1999 to review the options for improving protection for marine sites andspecies, which brought together marine industries and nature conservation organisations withrepresentatives of Government departments and agencies.

Scottish ZoneThe sea area where fisheries regulation has been devolved to the Scottish ministers.

Sea Fisheries CommitteeSea Fisheries Committee is a local fishery committee constituted under Section 2 of the SeaFisheries Regulation Act 1966 for the purpose of regulating fishing for sea fish (except forsalmon and migratory trout) out to 6nm.

SeascapesAreas of any extent or scale that include the sea as a key feature. Seascapes have physical andexperiential attributes, encompass the interrelationship between the sea and the sky, and mayinclude land.

Sedentary speciesA species that is attached to the substratum but capable of moving across it.

Sessile speciesA species that is permanently attached to the substratum

Seismic surveyModern large-scale seismic surveys are conducted using a towed array of ‘airguns’ – cylinders ofcompressed air. The array, typically containing tens of such cylinders, is discharged simultaneously,to generate a pressure pulse which travels downwards into the seabed. The pulses, reflected backfrom the seabed and underlying strata, are recorded, interpreted and plotted.

Several and Regulating OrdersSeveral and Regulating Orders are orders made under Section 1 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 for the purpose of the establishment or improvement and for the maintenance andregulation of a fishery for the type of shellfish specified in the order over an area of the shore,seabed or tidal waters.

Special Area of ConservationEuropean protected area established to protect species or habitats listed in the annexes of theHabitats Directive.

Special Protection AreaEuropean protected area established to protect species listed in the annexes of the Birds Directive.

Site of Special Scientific InterestA site notified under Section 28 the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 because it is of specialinterest by reason of the flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features.

164

Glossary

Statutory Instrument (SI)A form of delegated legislation. Ministers can be given powers by an Act of Parliament to makeSIs in order to supplement the rules contained in that Act. SIs usually therefore contain detailedlegal rules governing such things as the procedure for granting a licence.

Strategic Environmental AssessmentIs an assessment required under the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive of certainplans and programmes that are likely to have significant effects on the environment.

Sustainable DevelopmentDevelopment that enables all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoya better quality of life without compromising the quality of life of future generations.

Territorial WatersIdentified under the Territorial Sea Act 1987. In general, the area extends to a maximum of 12nautical miles from a prescribed baseline, or to the median line between adjacent states.

Trophic LevelA group of organisms that occupy the same position in a food chain.

UK Internal WatersUK internal waters are marine waters on the landward side of the baselines from which thewidth of the territorial sea is measured.

UK Territorial SeaThe UK territorial sea is the sea adjacent to the UK identified under the Territorial Sea Act 1987as extending to a maximum of 12 nautical miles from the prescribed baselines or (if less) themedian line between adjacent nautical states.

UK WatersUK internal waters, the UK territorial sea, and the sea within the area of the continental shelf or(where applicable) the area over which the UK otherwise enjoys rights in relation to theexploitation of certain marine resources.

Viable populationsSelf-sustaining populations with a high probability of survival despite the foreseeable effects ofdemographic, environmental and genetic variability and of natural disasters

Waste assimilationThe capacity of the receiving environment to neutralise human-derived wastes via biological,physical or chemical processes such as the adsorption, transformation, breakdown or dilution ofcompounds.

165

Glossary

166

AFBI Agri-food and Biosciences Institute

AGMACS Advisory Group on Marine & Coastal Strategy

ASCOBANS Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas

ASFC Association of Sea Fisheries Committees

ASSI Area of Special Scientific Interest

BSFO British Sea Fisheries Officer

CCS Carbon Capture and Storage

CEFAS Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

CFP Common Fisheries Policy

CLG Communities and Local Government (formerly Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)

CPA Coast Protection Act 1949

CROW The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

DAC UK Marine Data Archive Centre

DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (NI)

DCAL Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (NI)

DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DETI Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (NI)

DfT Department for Transport

DOE Department of the Environment (NI)

DRD Department for Regional Development (NI)

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

EA Environment Agency

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EH English Heritage

EHS Environment & Heritage Service (NI)

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EPP Environmental Permitting Programme

EU European Union

FAPS Financial Administrative Penalties

FEPA Food and Environment Protection Act 1985

Acronyms

167

GV Government View Procedure

HPMR Highly Protected Marine Reserve

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management

INSPIRE EC Directive on Spatial Information in the Community

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IUCN World Conservation Union (Also known as The International Union for theConservation of Nature and Natural Resources)

IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated

JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee

LDD Local Development Document

LDF Local Development Framework

LGA 2000 Local Government Act 2000

LSP Laboratory Strategy Programme

MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency

MCEU Marine Consents and Environment Unit

MCZ Marine Conservation Zone

MDIP Marine Data and Information Partnership

MEDAG Marine Environmental Data Action Group

MEO Marine Ecosystem Objective

MESH Mapping European Seabed Habitats project

MFA Marine Fisheries Agency

MHWS Mean High Water Springs

MLWM Mean Low Water Mark

MLWS Mean Low Water Springs

MMO Marine Management Organisation (previously referred to as a ‘marine agency’)

MNR Marine Nature Reserves

MoD Ministry of Defence

MPA Marine Protected Area

NDPB Non-Departmental Government Body

NE Natural England

Acronyms

168

Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery OfficeID5522761 03/07 19585

Printed on Paper containing 75% fibre content minimum

NERC National Environment Research Council

NM Nautical Miles

OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic

RBMP River Basin Management Plan

REZ Renewable Energy Zone

RIA Regulatory Impact Assessment

RMNC Review of Marine Nature Conservation

RN Royal Navy

RSA Recreational Sea Angling

RSS Regional Spatial Strategy

SAC Special Area of Conservation

SCG Streamlined Consents Group

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SFC Sea Fisheries Committee

SFI Sea Fisheries Inspectorate, Northern Ireland

SFPA Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise

SPA Special Protection Area

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

TWA Transport & Works Act 1992

UKHO UK Hydrographic Office

UKMMAS UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

VMS Vessel Monitoring System

WCMP Wales Coastal & Maritime Partnership

WFD Water Framework Directive

Acronyms

Nobel House17 Smith SquareLondon SW1P 3JR

www.defra.gov.uk

Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:

Onlinewww.tsoshop.co.uk

Mail,Telephone, Fax & E-mailTSOPO Box 29, Norwich, NR3 1GNTelephone orders/General enquiries: 0870 600 5522

Fax orders: 0870 600 5533Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474

E-mail: [email protected] 0870 240 3701

TSO Shops123 Kingsway, London,WC2B 6PQ020 7242 6393 Fax 020 7242 639416 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD028 9023 8451 Fax 028 9023 540171 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9AZ0870 606 5566 Fax 0870 606 5588

TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents

Documents

A Sea Change · for those who make a living from its resources but because of the seas’ crucial role in absorbing greenhouse gases, it is critical to the balance of the earth’s